Posted on 07/01/2021 7:33:31 AM PDT by entropy12
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Words matter. "Bigoted" is the word you want to use in this case, as the topic has no mention of 'race'. Missed by most bigots who don't 'identify' as 'racists'.
This is the FR. We don’t need to read no stinking articles!
Yes. It’s NBC. That’s a given.
Last night a guest on the Gutfeld show summed it up: The left infantilizes blacks.
“They don’t even try to hide it anymore.”
But the article did do one thing, it opened the door for a libel lawsuit. Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
By making the below statement within the article democrats are violating all three of the methods saying the republican party members are dishonestly using the voting laws to retard minority voting “intentionally”:
“But Arizona Democrats said the state had a history of switching polling places more often in minority neighborhoods and locating them in places intended to cause mistakes.”
And even if they were, it is still libel unless they had already proven it was intentional. Good luck on that one. Democrats only hide the truth, not prove it. Free speech isn’t always free, there are limits like everything else.
Wy69
What a crap article. No bias there. No siree.
Oh, please.
Have you even read the opinion?
No, I didn’t think so.
Good grief.
Would you care to elaborate, or just remain arrogant?
Didn’t Trump sign something in 2017 that if the election has changed interference by foreign countries it makes the election void.
The hard core liberals on the court always vote as a block. They don't break ranks. But the court is not political. Yeah, right.
“(4) Section 2(b) directs courts to consider “the totality of circumstances,” but the dissent would make §2 turn almost entirely on one circumstance: disparate impact. The dissent also would adopt a least-restrictive means requirement that would force a State to prove that the interest served by its voting rule could not be accomplished in any other less burdensome way. Such a requirement has no footing in the text of §2 or the Court’s precedent construing it and would have the potential to invalidate just about any voting rule a State adopts....
(1) Having to identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the “usual burdens of voting.” Crawford, 553 U. S., at 198. In addition, the State made extensive efforts to reduce the impact of the out-of-precinct policy on the number of valid votes ultimately cast, e.g., by sending a sample ballot to each household that includes a voter’s proper polling location.
The burdens of identifying and traveling to one’s assigned precinct are also modest when consid-ering Arizona’s “political processes” as a whole. The State offers other easy ways to vote, which likely explains why out-of-precinct votes on election day make up such a small and apparently diminishing portion of overall ballots cast.
Next, the racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-precinct policy is small in absolute terms. Of the Arizona counties that reported out-of-precinct ballots in the 2016 general election, a little over 1% of Hispanic voters, 1% of African-American voters, and 1% of Native American voters who voted on election day cast an out-of-precinct ballot. For non-minority voters, the rate was around 0.5%. A procedure that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies—minority and non-minority alike—is unlikely to render a system unequally open....
(2) Arizona’s HB 2023 also passes muster under §2. Arizonans can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office. These options entail the “usual burdens of voting,” and assistance from a statutorily authorized proxy is also available. The State also makes special pro-vision for certain groups of voters who are unable to use the early vot-ing system. See §16–549(C). And here, the plaintiffs were unable to show the extent to which HB 2023 disproportionately burdens minor-ity voters.
Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4.
The Court of Appeals viewed the State’s justifications for HB 2023 as tenuous largely because there was no evidence of early ballot fraud in Arizona. But prevention of fraud is not the only legitimate interest served by restrictions on ballot col-lection. Third-party ballot collection can lead to pressure and intimidation. Further, a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
“The Court of Appeals attempted to paint a different picture, but its use of statistics was highly misleading for reasons that were well explained by Judge Easterbrook in a §2 case involving voter IDs. As he put it, a distorted picture can be created by dividing one percentage by another. Frank, 768 F. 3d, at 752, n. 3. He gave this example: “If 99.9% of whites had photo IDs, and 99.7% of blacks did,” it could be said that “ ‘blacks are three times as likely as whites to lack qualifying ID’ (0.3 ÷ 0.1 = 3), but such a statement would mask the fact that the populations were effectively identical.” Ibid.
That is exactly what the en banc Ninth Circuit did here. The District Court found that among the counties that reported out-of-precinct ballots in the 2016 general election, roughly 99% of Hispanic voters, 99% of African-American voters, and 99% of Native American voters who voted on election day cast their ballots in the right precinct, while roughly 99.5% of non-minority voters did so. 329 F. Supp. 3d, at 872. Based on these statistics, the en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that “minority voters in Arizona cast [out-of-precinct] ballots at twice the rate of white voters.” 948 F. 3d, at 1014; see id., at 1004–1005. This is precisely the sort of statistical manipulation that Judge Easterbrook rightly criticized, namely, 1.0 ÷ 0.5 = 2. Properly understood, the statistics show only a small disparity that provides little support for concluding that Arizona’s political processes are not equally open.”
YES! RATIONAL THOUGHT!
Oh, the RESTRICTIVE ones. I see. Nothing Butt Crap.
Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws in test of Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting safeguards law in test of Voting Rights Act
Please post a link to the opinion for us that would like to read it.
I thought we only had the right to vote for whomever we want, not the right to have my choice win and be elected.
LOL well...you know the spin from media.
SAID (by some scumbag DNC parasite) that those laws negatively impact colored people.
Not that it actually is law that is racially motivated or impacts racial vote counts.
If you have something else, post it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.