Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Rules Amidst Partisan Debate: A Deep Dive Analysis

The Supreme Court has aligned with the GOP, backing Arizona’s voting regulations denounced by Democrats as prejudiced. The lawsuit revolved around two Arizona voting regulations flagged by a federal appeals court for breaching the Voting Rights Act.

Activists, urging Senators, notably US Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, to endorse the removal of the Senate filibuster to facilitate the passage of voting rights bills and economic relief measures, protested outside the US Supreme Court during the “Moral March” on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2021.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 split along partisan lines, supported Arizona’s voting regulations, championed by Republicans, which Democrats claimed discriminated against Native American, Hispanic, and Black voters in the state.

The legal dispute centered on two Arizona voting regulations flagged by a federal appeals court for infringing the Voting Rights Act due to their disproportionate impact on minorities. In a majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito contended that neither regulation contravened civil rights legislation.

One of the measures, referred to as the “out-of-precinct policy,” disallows ballots cast in an incorrect precinct on Election Day. The other termed the “ballot collection law,” prohibits most individuals except relatives from collecting and submitting ballots at polling stations. Republicans commonly denounce third-party ballot collection as “ballot harvesting.”

The Democratic National Committee challenged both regulations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, mandating equitable access to elections for individuals of all races. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the DNC.

The full appeals court asserted in a ruling last year that the out-of-precinct policy disproportionately affected Native American, Hispanic, and Black voters in Arizona. Regarding the ballot collection law, the court noted that circumstances “collectively and unmistakably revealed” racial bias as the impetus behind its enactment.

Alito, joined by the five other justices appointed by Republican presidents, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, defended the regulations. Dissenting were the court’s three Democratic appointees, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Alito argued that neither regulation significantly hindered election accessibility to all voters. He contended that under Arizona law, voting was generally “extremely facile.”

“Having to ascertain one’s polling location and then journey there to cast a vote does not surpass the ‘typical encumbrances of voting,'” Alito remarked. He further noted that the alleged disparate impact on minority voters was “minimal in absolute terms.”

A lower court determined that approximately 1% of ballots cast by Native American, Hispanic, and Black voters were lodged in incorrect precincts on Election Day, compared to about half that rate for non-minorities.

“A policy that appears to serve 98% or more of the voters to whom it pertains — minority and non-minority alike — is improbable to render a system differentially open,” Alito contended.

Regarding the ballot collection regulation, Alito argued that Democrats failed to demonstrate any disparate impact. Even if there were such an impact, he stated, it wouldn’t suffice to invalidate the regulation under the Voting Rights Act, considering the state’s interest in establishing its election protocols.

Alito referenced the 2006 case Purcell v. Gonzalez, where the court reasoned, “A State undeniably holds a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its electoral process.”

“Restricting the categories of individuals permitted to handle early ballots to those less inclined to harbor ulterior motives deters potential fraud and bolsters voter confidence,” Alito asserted.

In a dissent concurred by Breyer and Sotomayor, Kagan lamented the majority decision.

“What is lamentable here is that the Court has (once again) revised — to dilute — a statute that stands as a testament to America’s greatness and safeguards against its most ignoble inclinations,” Kagan lamented. “What is regrettable is that the Court has undermined a statute crafted to achieve ‘the cessation of discrimination in voting.'”

The former Harvard Law School dean took umbrage with Alito’s portrayal of Arizona’s regulations as imposing minimal inconvenience on minority voters.

“And what constitutes a ‘mere inconvenience’ or ‘typical encumbrance’ anyhow? The authors of the Voting Rights Act recognized that ‘social and historical circumstances,’ including disparities in education, wealth, and employment, frequently impede voting opportunities,” Kagan contended.

“What doesn’t impede one citizen from casting a ballot might impede another,” she added.

The ruling comes amid Republican-led state legislatures contemplating new voting measures to tighten election regulations in forthcoming contests. The surge in new bills was prompted by former President Donald Trump’s baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, hailed the decision as a “resounding triumph for election integrity and the rule of law.”

“Democrats sought to undermine the security of Arizona ballots for political ends, but the Court saw through their partisan deceit. In Arizona and nationwide, states are best positioned to oversee their elections,” McDaniel asserted.

The decision marks the first instance the court has examined how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act pertains to state laws governing ballot collection and tallying. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the high court weakened a distinct provision of the law mandating that jurisdictions with histories of discrimination obtain federal clearance for new voting regulations.

President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has pledged heightened focus on voting rights in light of the Shelby County ruling and the proliferation of new election bills. Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced a doubling of staff dedicated to enforcing voting rights.

Biden expressed profound disappointment with the court’s decision, asserting that it undermines the Voting Rights Act and upholds what Justice Kagan termed “a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities.”

“In just eight years, the Court has now inflicted severe damage on two of the most pivotal provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a law that was the culmination of years of struggle and strife,” Biden lamented.

Voting rights advocates contend that the court’s decision could impede efforts to safeguard voting rights.

Following the release of the court’s decision, American Civil Liberties Union voting rights attorney Davin Rosborough stated, “The court’s constriction of Section 2 is particularly troubling given its significance in combating voter suppression laws that disproportionately impact communities of color.”

“The court’s decision adopts a standard for proving violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that is unduly constricted and at odds with the law’s objective of eradicating all voting practices that are racially discriminatory in their impact on voting opportunity, whether overt or subtle,” Rosborough remarked.

Meanwhile, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican who defended the state’s regulations, lauded the court’s ruling.

“Today marks a triumph for election integrity safeguards in Arizona and across the nation. Fair elections are the bedrock of our republic, and they begin with reasonable laws that safeguard both the right to vote and the accuracy of the outcomes,” Brnovich declared.

The cases are formally known as Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No.

19–1257, and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC, No. 19–1258.