State’s laws are not in violating of the Voting Rights Act.
This past week, the Supreme Court released a ruling that upholds two Arizona voting laws the state lawmakers put in place to ensure election integrity. The Court’s decision comes at a time when states and Congress are debating voting restrictions.
The laws require two things. The first is that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than one matching the voter’s home address. The second is a ban on “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which third party carriers collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting.
The 6-3 decision found that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was not violated, and that the laws were not enacted with racially discriminatory intent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s majority, and Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent.
In the ruling, Justice Alito wrote that because the laws gave voters an “equal opportunity” to vote, they were not discriminatory. He took issue with the dissent that focused on the “disparate impact” of the enacted laws upon minorities, many of whom were voting in the wrong precinct or participating in ballot harvesting. “Differences in employment, wealth, and education may make it virtually impossible for a State to devise rules that do not have some disparate impact,” Justice Alito wrote.
At the same time, he added, focusing solely on the disparate impact of laws inevitably lays aside other considerations, such as preventing fraud. And on the whole, the requirements of the two laws in question are “unremarkable,” he wrote.
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For the Supreme Court decision to support and ensure election integrity.
- For state officials seeking to protect ballots and election results from interference or fraud.
- For God’s purpose to be accomplished through the ongoing debates regarding election reforms.
Sources: Washington Examiner, Washington Post
