San Diego Union-Tribune

SUPREME COURT COULD LIMIT VOTING RIGHTS LAWSUITS

Justices to hear case on Arizona ballot collection

- BY MARK SHERMAN Sherman writes for The Associated Press.

Eight years after carving the heart out of a landmark voting rights law, the Supreme Court is looking at putting new limits on efforts to combat racial discrimina­tion in voting.

The justices are taking up a case about Arizona restrictio­ns on ballot collection and another policy that penalizes voters who cast ballots in the wrong precinct.

The high court’s considerat­ion comes as Republican officials in the state and around the country have proposed more than 150 measures, following last year’s elections, to restrict voting access that civil rights groups say would disproport­ionately affect Black and Hispanic voters.

A broad Supreme Court ruling would make it harder to fight those efforts in court. Arguments are set for Tuesday via telephone, because of the coronaviru­s pandemic.

“It would be taking away one of the big tools, in fact, the main tool we have left now, to protect voters against racial discrimina­tion,” said Myrna Perez, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s voting rights and elections program.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican,

said the high court case is about ballot integrity, not discrimina­tion. “This is about protecting the franchise, not disenfranc­hising anyone,” said Brnovich, who will argue the case on Tuesday.

President Joe Biden narrowly won Arizona last year, and since 2018, the state has elected two Democratic senators.

The justices will be reviewing an appeals court ruling against a 2016 Arizona law that limits who can return early ballots for another person and against a separate state policy of discarding ballots if a voter goes to the wrong precinct.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ballot-collection law and the state policy discrimina­te against minority voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and that the law also violates the Constituti­on.

The Voting Rights Act, first enacted in 1965, was extremely effective against discrimina­tion at the ballot box because it forced state and local government­s, with a history of discrimina­tion, including Arizona, to get advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to elections.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the portion of the law known as Section 5 could no longer be enforced because the population formula for determinin­g which states were covered hadn’t been updated to take account of racial progress.

Congress “must identify those jurisdicti­ons to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,“Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservati­ve majority. “It cannot rely simply on the past.”

Democrats in Congress will try again to revive the advance approval provision of the voting rights law. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancemen­t Act failed in the last Congress, when Republican­s controlled the Senate and President Donald Trump was in the White House.

But another part of the law, Section 2, applies nationwide and still prohibits discrimina­tion in voting on the basis of race. Civil rights groups and voters alleging racial bias have to go to court and prove their case either by showing intentiona­l discrimina­tion in passing a law or that the results of the law fall most heavily on minorities.

The new Supreme Court case mainly concerns how plaintiffs can prove discrimina­tion based on the law’s results.

The arguments are taking place against the backdrop of the 2020 election, in which there was a massive increase in early voting and mailed-in ballots because of the pandemic.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States