Tell Pete Williams it is settled law and to go away.
What’s the catch? With these traitorous judges even on the SC one wonders what the real verdict will be.
6-3 ruling. Roberts is dragged along kicking and screaming to make the right decision.
What a totally biased and anti-Constitutional article by the same old suspects. They don’t even try to hid it anymore.
6-3 is pretty good, and a little surprising.
>>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.
Ballot stuffers were hoping the Supreme Court gods in black dresses would codify their illegal changes to election law that were made in mnay states by judicial decree and precinct bosses and not the legislators.
“restrictive”? “Restricted” to voters actually voting for themselves.
...challengers said make it harder for minorities to vote.
So Pete, don’t you think the opinion that the law will “make it harder for minorities to vote” is just a little bit racist? ? ?
Of course...the law pertains to all...not just blacks.
It’s Deep State throwing us a bone.
Deep State is happy to keep the conversation focused on anything other than RCV and crooked voting machines.
Rare common sense from the government. You actually have to be who you claim to be in order to vote!
Hallelujah!
“Writing in dissent for herself and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan said...”
Never any doubt.
MSM outlets screaming bloody murder on this ruling, basically “SCOTUS upholds disenfranchising people of color” etc.
Expect a flurry of new demands for Dementia Joe to pack the court.
What a crap article. No bias there. No siree.
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!