XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.elections, alt.abortion   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: slimeballs@clintonfoundation.org   
      
   In article    
    wrote:   
      
   WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two election   
   laws in the 2020 battleground state of Arizona that challengers   
   said make it harder for minorities to vote.   
      
   The case was an important test for what's left of one of the   
   nation's most important civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act   
   of 1965, which the Supreme Court scaled back in 2013. A   
   remaining provision allows lawsuits claiming that voting changes   
   would put minority voters at a disadvantage in electing   
   candidates of their choice.   
      
   The vote was 6-3, with the court's three liberals dissenting.   
      
   Election law experts said the court's ruling will make it harder   
   for minority groups to challenge voting laws.   
      
   "This significantly dilutes the Voting Rights Act," said Rick   
   Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.   
   "Minority groups will now have to meet a much higher standard   
   beyond showing that a change presents a burden to voting. It   
   puts a thumb on the scale for the states."   
      
   Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law   
   requires "equal openness" to the voting process. "Mere   
   inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation" of   
   the law, he wrote.   
      
   Voting law changes may have a different impact on minority and   
   nonminority groups, Alito said, "but the mere fact there is some   
   disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is   
   not equally open or does not give everyone an equal opportunity   
   to vote."   
      
   Writing in dissent for herself and Justices Stephen Breyer and   
   Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision   
   undermines the Voting Rights Act, which she called "a statute   
   that stands as a monument to America's greatness and protects   
   against its basest impulses."   
      
   President Joe Biden said in a statement that he was "deeply   
   disappointed" in the decision.   
      
   "In a span of just eight years, the court has now done severe   
   damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting   
   Rights Act of 1965 — a law that took years of struggle and   
   strife to secure," he said in a statement, arguing that the   
   ruling makes federal voting legislation all the more necessary.   
      
   "The court’s decision, harmful as it is, does not limit   
   Congress’ ability to repair the damage done today: it puts the   
   burden back on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act to its   
   intended strength," Biden said.   
      
   Civil rights groups were hoping the Supreme Court would use the   
   Arizona case to strengthen their ability to challenge the dozens   
   of post-2020 voting restrictions imposed by Republican   
   legislatures in the wake of Donald Trump's defeat.   
      
   Thursday's ruling said Arizona did not violate the Voting Rights   
   Act when it passed a law in 2016 allowing only voters, their   
   family members or their caregivers to collect and deliver a   
   completed ballot. The court also upheld a longstanding state   
   policy requiring election officials to throw out ballots   
   accidentally cast in the wrong precincts.   
      
   Lawyers for the state said they wanted to prohibit "unlimited   
   third-party ballot harvesting," which they called a commonsense   
   way to protect the secret ballot. They said the out-of-precinct   
   rule was intended to prevent fraudulent multiple voting.   
      
   But Arizona Democrats said the state had a history of switching   
   polling places more often in minority neighborhoods and putting   
   them in places intended to cause mistakes. And the Democrats   
   said minority voters are more likely to need help turning in   
   their ballots. In many states where ballot collection is legal,   
   community activists offer it to encourage voting, they said.   
      
   A federal judge in Arizona rejected the challenges. But the 9th   
   U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, so the   
   state appealed to the Supreme Court.   
      
   In the past, the Voting Rights Act required states with a   
   history of discrimination to get permission from a court or the   
   Justice Department before changing election procedures, the test   
   being whether the change would leave minority voters worse off.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)