Supreme Court upholds voter integrity measures
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two Republican-supported Arizona voting laws they say are intended to ensure election integrity.
The decision, delivered by a 6-3 court split on partisan lines, found that neither law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that they were not enacted with racially discriminatory intent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan led the liberals in dissent.
The Arizona Republican Party and the Democratic National Committee have been feuding over the laws since before the 2016 presidential election. The case received renewed attention in the aftermath of the 2020 election after many red-state politicians said that coronavirus-era voting provisions had unfairly tilted the election to the Democrats.
The laws require two things. The first is that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The second is a ban on “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which third-party carriers collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting.
...
Ballot harvesting facilitates cheating. The ballot harvester can decide to throw away ballots for candidates he or she does not favor. It can also lead to abuses such as the harvester filling out ballots for nursing home patients who may not be aware of what is happening.
The court also struck down a California law that required disclosure of donors.
...
In a 6-3 decision, the court found that the requirement is invalid because it burdens donors' First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to advance important government interests. The decision is a win for nonprofit organizations that argued that the rule was intimidating donors who might otherwise support controversial anonymous causes.
...
Comments
Post a Comment