Posted on 03/02/2021 6:56:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday over a set of Arizona voting restrictions alleged to be racially discriminatory in a dispute that could set the most important voting rights precedent in nearly a decade.
A potentially landmark ruling in the coming months may determine whether a suite of voting curbs working their way through GOP state legislatures across the country will survive legal scrutiny before the pivotal 2022 midterms and the next race for the White House.
For the 6-3 conservative-majority court, the case marks a first chance to define the sweep of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That provision, Section 2, makes it illegal to enact laws that place an unequal burden on the franchise of racial minorities.
Civil rights groups say it’s crucial that the justices use the Arizona case to give a robust reading to Section 2 in light of a past Supreme Court ruling that narrowed safeguards for minority voters.
“It is imperative that this Court continue to construe Section 2 expansively, as Congress intended,” the NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote in an amicus brief.
Such a ruling, the group said, is the only way to fulfill the law’s “original purpose of ridding the political process of racial discrimination.”
Tuesday’s arguments will see the justices revisit the scope of voting protections after the court’s highly controversial decision eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder. There, a 5-4 court voted to invalidate a section of the VRA that forced former Jim Crow states and other locations with a discriminatory past to get federal approval before changing their voting rules.
In striking down the preclearance requirement, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in 2013, said the VRA could continue to guard against racist voting laws after the fact
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The Arizona dispute now tees up a critical test for a Supreme Court bench that skews even more conservative than when the Shelby County case was decided, with the addition of three Trump-appointed justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
And those three Trump appointees have been doing a fabulous job!~sarc
I have lost confidence they will do right......
....except for Thomas and Alito
Vote integrity? We’re depending on a SCOTUS without integrity to rule on vote integrity.
Good luck with that.
“... resolve election disputes over ballot harvesting and polling locations..,”?
S’cuse me... We are over 200 years into this thing and we still need to ‘resolve’ this basic stuff?
Please... I mean why re invent the wheel when all we need to do it ENFORCE existing law?
Please let me know if I am VERY wrong about this
It really doesn’t affect anything. The involved parties, more than anything, determine the outcome. If Trump is one of the parties that matters more than precedent, laws or the constitution. That’s the biggest takeaway from the last 4 years.
Kavanaugh and Brarett are not to be trusted. Gorsuch seems to be better than average in my estimation
Why not? Anything besides denying a hearing for the PA election case (which I agree was puzzling to say the least)?
Americans, not Maltese like Roberts, DEMAND
to know the ROLE of his wife in the satellites
used to STEAL THE ELECTION of CJ Robert’s
declared ENEMY (before the ELECTION): Pres. Trump.
Roberts must resign and his wife must be deposed.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments.
Sure the Supine Court will pretend to hear arguments and then retire to their respective safe rooms and tear up the brief.
At best, 5-4. Roberts has clearly thrown in with the left. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are question marks on different issues. The liberal wing's votes can be chiseled into stone. There is no doubt where their votes lie. The "conservatives" are really not a reliable bloc that will clearly follow the constitution other than Thomas and Alito.
Not that we need more reason that the election decisions (That is specifically what makes me weary with Kavanaugh). Barrett loves the praise she was getting during her hearing....too much. I’m thinking she will be seeking more of it. I hope I’m wrong
That provision, Section 2, makes it illegal to enact laws that place an unequal burden on the franchise of racial minorities.
_________________________________________________________
So, what electoral laws are supposedly creating this “unequal burden”?
CJ Roberts is 10 yards deep ready to receive the snap. Good snap,Roberts handles the snap flawlessly and he gets away high, booming punt . . . this one won’t be returned by the receiving team. . . . corrupt creep
We the voters will get screwed no matter what. I am being realistic and not pessimistic here. The USSC has never supported a single instance of upholding voting law or the US Constitution. None.
Not that we need more reason that the election decisions
Apart from PA, what did they decide on apart from saying Texas et alia lacked standing - where Alito and Thomas differed only to the extent of saying "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction"?
Exactly. Zero faith in this Robert’s Court. I think it more likely they will enshrine voter fraud than put integrity back in our elections.
I think, if I remember correctly there were two decisions regarding mail in ballot rule changes prior to the election. Brett ruled with the left on one of them with some contrived twisted reasoning. Not sure it was PA. It might have been NC. That was a tell to me.
Roberts has traditionally gone to the right on VRA cases. It’s possible we win this one. Now whether it really means much when the rules are changed and elections are stolen if the wrong person is popular with voters is another matter.
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.