.The Biden Administration’s Lawsuit Against Georgia’s Voting Rules Is Legal Garbage
- The Supreme Court’s response to the arguments made in attacking Arizona’s voting-integrity provisions expose the folly of the Biden administration’s lawsuit against Georgia.
**************
States can now be confident they will be able to pass sensible election laws to prevent voter fraud without undue judicial interference.
.
The case the Supreme Court decided involved two of Arizona’s voting-related restrictions that opponents claimed violated Section 2. (Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 bars any law that discriminates in voting based on race).
On July 1st, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court majority interpreted the Section 2 “effects” clause to apply only when the challenged restriction imposes a substantial burden with a significantly disparate impact on members of different racial groups.
One of the restrictions required the invalidation of ballots cast in person in the wrong precinct.
The other restriction prohibited vote harvesting, where third parties such as campaign workers, community activists, etc. go around and collect ballots from multiple voters in different households and deliver them to official polling stations or election offices.
“Mere inconvenience cannot be enough,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority, describing common sense “guideposts” for dealing with Section 2 challenges. The decision treats blacks and other people of color as adults who are capable of taking advantage of the same multiple ways to vote that are available to everyone else.
More
Supreme Court Strikes a Major Blow For Election Integrity
- Thwarts baseless leftist attacks on state laws that prevent voter fraud.
Wed Jul 7, 2021
The Supreme Court case involves Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, which bars any law that discriminates in voting based on race. Racial discrimination in voting is prohibited, whether the law at issue was passed for the purpose of discriminating or the law is proven to have had a discriminatory effect.
By a 6 to 3 vote that split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court majority interpreted the Section 2 “effects” clause to apply only when the challenged restriction imposes a substantial burden with a significantly disparate impact on members of different racial groups.
“Mere inconvenience cannot be enough,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority, describing common sense “guideposts” for dealing with Section 2 challenges. The decision treats blacks and other people of color as adults who are capable of taking advantage of the same multiple ways available to them to vote that are available to everyone else.
The case the Supreme Court decided involved two of Arizona’s voting-related restrictions that opponents claimed violated Section 2. One of the restrictions required the invalidation of ballots cast in person in the wrong precinct. The other restriction prohibited vote harvesting, where third parties such as campaign workers, community activists, etc. go around and collect ballots from multiple voters in different households and deliver them to official polling stations or election offices.