U.S. Supreme Court Appears Favorable to Arizona Election Integrity Lawsuits

Epoch Times ^ | 03/02/2021

[SeekAndFind]

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich urged the Supreme Court on March 2 to affirm that his state’s electoral integrity laws were consistent with the federal Voting Rights Act and should be upheld.

The case Arizona’s top prosecutor argued is actually two consolidated cases: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC.

Although the justices peppered counsel for Arizona and the state’s Republican Party with at-times hostile-sounding questions, members of the Supreme Court seemed receptive to their arguments. Except for the more liberal members, the justices did not seem convinced that Arizona’s election laws violated the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court threw out a series of Republican-initiated legal challenges on Feb. 22 to voting processes and results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that were left over from the 2020 election cycle. And on March 1, the court dismissed an election challenge from Arizona, In Re Tyler Bowyer, and one from Wisconsin, In Re William Feehan, that were brought on Dec. 15, 2020, by pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell.

The oral arguments in Brnovich’s case before the Supreme Court came days after an Arizona judge ruled in a separate case that state lawmakers have the right to access 2.1 million ballots cast in the state’s most populous county, Maricopa County, and related electronic materials in order to carry out an audit of the Nov. 3, 2020, election results, as The Epoch Times previously reported.

The Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 2, 2020, to hear the case at hand, which concerns efforts that Republicans say would undermine electoral integrity measures and throw the Grand Canyon State open to ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting.

[SeekAndFind]

The Supreme Court allotted 60 minutes to oral arguments but used 114 on March 2.

“Arizona has not denied anyone any voting opportunity of any kind,” said Michael Carvin, attorney for the Arizona Republican Party.

No literacy test denies the right to vote and there is no “vote dilution where white bloc voting denies minorities an equal opportunity to elect. Everyone here is eligible and registered to vote. All they have to do is utilize the myriad opportunities that Arizona has offered them over 27 days to vote by mail for free or in person. And since there’s no denial of opportunity, this is a disparate impact claim that would not even be cognizable in other contexts.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested to Carvin that being poor is itself a violation of a person’s voting rights.

“If you can’t vote because you are a Native American or a non-Hispanic in areas where car ownership rates are very small, where you don’t have mail pickup or mail delivery, where your post office is at the edge of town and so that you require either a relative to pick up your vote, or you happen to vote in a wrong precinct because your particular area has a confusion of precinct assignments, if you just can’t vote for those reasons and you’re not—your vote is not being counted, you’ve been denied the right to vote, haven’t you?”

Later, replying to Justice Neil Gorsuch, Carvin said, “if socioeconomic factors lead to underutilization by minorities, that’s not a cognizable factor under Section 2 because it’s got to be the voting practice that causes the diminished opportunity.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested to Jessica Amunson, counsel for Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, that a clear legal standard was needed.

“All election rules are going to make it easier for some to vote than others,” the justice said.

Barrett asked Carvin, “What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct voter ballot disqualification rules on the books?”

He responded: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50 to 49 and losing.”

Brnovich told the court that Arizona’s laws are consistent with the VRA.

“Requiring in-person voters to cast their ballots at assigned precincts ensures that they can vote in local races and helps officials monitor for fraud. Restricting early ballot collections by third parties, including political operatives, protects against voter coercion and preserves ballot secrecy. Arizona urges this Court to adopt a clear and workable test for voter denial claims that allows states to properly regulate their elections.”

[frank ballenger]

SCOTUS justice with voice quavering and hands shaking, reads statement “we will possibly consider a case so long as it is not too controversial or with too much messy legal stuff in it.”
Adds “But we’re about to go on recess really soon.”

[Widget Jr]

It looks like Roberts is looking for possible leverage on the occupant of the White House. Roberts knows the election was stolen, and is trying to drag it out and find a way to "never let a crisis go to waste". Keeping challenges going after the election gives Roberts something he can use.

When Biden starts showing he really can not handle the job, expect SCOTUS to start talking more about elections. This is like Iran's Ruling and Guardian Councils deciding who gets to run or who gets to be in office at all.

[familyop]

Very good news! Well done! Maybe the case will present helpful info for other states.

[teletech]

NOW suddenly Justice Barrett is interested in illegal votes where she couldn’t care less in the Sidney Powell cases. SAD!

[TheTimeOfMan]

Roberts is a snake. There is no chess here.

[Cen-Tejas]

..... historical legal experts claim Marbury vs Madison (1803) was the “most essential” ruling in the Supreme Court’s history.

I believe sweeping 50 odd 2020 election lawsuits off the table will be regarded by future SC historians as “the most embarrassing” and “offensive” ruling of the Supreme Court EVER. Dismissing approximately 50 lawsuits on grounds of “standing” on the most important issue of our time will forever be regarded in disgust of Roberts and all 2021 members except Alito and Thomas.

[alternatives?]

From my understanding, at best this will be a hold for Republicans. This is not a rollback of illegal Democrat approved measures. A loss means more fraud.

[redfreedom]

“Roberts is a snake. There is no chess here.”

Agreed. This spineless POS is too afraid of the Deep State to do anything to help election integrity. Mark my words.

[eeriegeno]

Their oath was a declaration to defend and uphold the Constitution! They did NOT do that. Those who closed their eyes to the stolen election of 2020 should resign. Hypocrites!!!

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

..... historical legal experts claim Marbury vs Madison (1803) was the “most essential” ruling in the Supreme Court’s history.

Wasn’t this just a power they”assumed” rather than stipulated in the constitution?

[nicollo]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor... “If you can’t vote because you are a Native American or a non-Hispanic in areas where car ownership rates are very small, where you don’t have mail pickup or mail delivery, where your post office is at the edge of town and so that you require either a relative to pick up your vote, or you happen to vote in a wrong precinct because your particular area has a confusion of precinct assignments, if you just can’t vote for those reasons and you’re not—your vote is not being counted, you’ve been denied the right to vote, haven’t you?”

Gee, Sonia, that welfare check just magically showed up? Or were they able to actually acquire necessary ID for a bank account for the direct deposit, and when did they figure out how to stamp an envelope to submit the forms in the first place?

I'm so sick of this argument that poor people can't vote because they can't get to the post office or DMV. Well, how in the hell did they get their tax form in for the EIC or every other government benefit, including their Obamaphone?

[Torquay]

“U.S. Supreme Court...”

I stopped reading right there! Currently, there is no longer a Constitutional and functioning U.S. Supreme Court!

[upchuck]

Why did you violate FR’s excerpting rules by continuing the article post down here in the reply section?

[kiryandil]

Eff the Supreme “Bitches To The Mob”.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Currently, there is no longer a Constitutional and functioning U.S. Supreme Court!

OK, if we can’t even go to the Supreme Court as our final redress for justice, what’s the alternative?

[Nateman]

....OK, if we can’t even go to the Supreme Court as our final redress for justice, what’s the alternative?

Article V, the Convention of States. It has been over 2 centuries since the Court of Supreme Whim siezed control of the final say on the Constitution. About time that was overturned

[DoodleDawg]

He responded: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50 to 49 and losing.”

So the purpose of the law is to suppress Democrat votes?

[kenmcg]

There are only two men on the court who believe in the Constitution and will stand by it. Trump’s appointees have abandoned their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.