task0778
Diamond Member
Five years after Arizona criminalized what critics call "ballot harvesting," and four months after a presidential election in which the practice was bitterly debated, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of cases that will determine when states may limit voting and, potentially, whether a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will stand.
Arguments in the case are set for Tuesday.
Twenty-six states allow voters to designate a third party to turn in their ballots, though 12 of those states limit how many ballots a person may collect, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states allow family members or caregivers to return ballots but not third-party groups such as Mi Familia Vota.
Supporters say ballot collection enfranchises low-income voters who work multiple jobs or can’t access transportation. Critics see a potential for ballot tampering and voter intimidation and point to a bipartisan report in 2005 in which former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker recommended prohibiting it.
President Donald Trump slammed ballot collection in the runup to the election Nov. 3, and there have been cases of fraud connected with the procedure – including in a New Jersey election last year. But Trump himself relied on someone else to submit his primary ballot, and nonpartisan observers say election fraud is exceedingly rare.
The outcome of the dispute before the justices could have far-reaching implications for the ability to challenge other controversial election laws, including voter ID requirements, that critics say have a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino voters.
About 165 bills that would restrict voting have been introduced this year in 33 states this year, a nearly fivefold increase from the same period in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
"The court could decide this in a number of ways, which could include weakening" the ability to challenge ballot laws, said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections program. That, she said, would undermine "the main tool we have left now to protect voters against racial discrimination."
Two Arizona polices are at issue in the cases.
First is the 2016 law prohibiting anyone but family, household members and mail carriers from collecting someone else’s ballot. The other is the state’s long-standing policy of not counting ballots submitted by voters in the wrong precinct.
Neither of those polices is unique to Arizona, but the California-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that they had a disproportionate impact on Native American, Latino and Black voters and that they were enacted within a broader context of voter discrimination in the state. The court noted that only 18% of Native Americans in Arizona have access to home mail service. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mark Brnovich, the state’s Republican attorney general, argued the standard used by the appeals court could find virtually any voting restriction discriminatory. The district court, he noted, found state lawmakers were "sincere in their belief" that ballot collection fraud was occurring (the court called that belief misinformed). President Joe Biden’s administration told the justices in a letter Feb. 16 that, in its view, neither policy violates the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.
"This isn’t some radical theory," Brnovich told USA TODAY. "First and foremost, a majority of states have statutes similar to Arizona's when it comes to out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting."
Brnovich said the state’s overall voting system – including a 27-day window to cast an early ballot – makes it easy for racial and ethnic minorities and nonminorities to vote. Roughly 8 in 10 Arizonans cast early ballots in 2016, according to court documents. On Election Day, 99% of minorities and 99.5% of nonminorities vote in the correct precinct – a difference, the state argued, that is not statistically significant.
When it is said that election fraud is rare, they mean it hasn't been proved to be more prevalent. Which is true, cuz it's hard to prove in a court of law due to a lack of evidence that will stand up in court. But that does not mean election fraud doesn't occur just because it hasn't been proven.
"About 165 bills that would restrict voting have been introduced this year in 33 states this year", now that's interesting. We'll see how it goes in 2022 an 2024.
Arguments in the case are set for Tuesday.
Twenty-six states allow voters to designate a third party to turn in their ballots, though 12 of those states limit how many ballots a person may collect, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states allow family members or caregivers to return ballots but not third-party groups such as Mi Familia Vota.
Supporters say ballot collection enfranchises low-income voters who work multiple jobs or can’t access transportation. Critics see a potential for ballot tampering and voter intimidation and point to a bipartisan report in 2005 in which former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker recommended prohibiting it.
President Donald Trump slammed ballot collection in the runup to the election Nov. 3, and there have been cases of fraud connected with the procedure – including in a New Jersey election last year. But Trump himself relied on someone else to submit his primary ballot, and nonpartisan observers say election fraud is exceedingly rare.
The outcome of the dispute before the justices could have far-reaching implications for the ability to challenge other controversial election laws, including voter ID requirements, that critics say have a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino voters.
About 165 bills that would restrict voting have been introduced this year in 33 states this year, a nearly fivefold increase from the same period in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
"The court could decide this in a number of ways, which could include weakening" the ability to challenge ballot laws, said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections program. That, she said, would undermine "the main tool we have left now to protect voters against racial discrimination."
Two Arizona polices are at issue in the cases.
First is the 2016 law prohibiting anyone but family, household members and mail carriers from collecting someone else’s ballot. The other is the state’s long-standing policy of not counting ballots submitted by voters in the wrong precinct.
Neither of those polices is unique to Arizona, but the California-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that they had a disproportionate impact on Native American, Latino and Black voters and that they were enacted within a broader context of voter discrimination in the state. The court noted that only 18% of Native Americans in Arizona have access to home mail service. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mark Brnovich, the state’s Republican attorney general, argued the standard used by the appeals court could find virtually any voting restriction discriminatory. The district court, he noted, found state lawmakers were "sincere in their belief" that ballot collection fraud was occurring (the court called that belief misinformed). President Joe Biden’s administration told the justices in a letter Feb. 16 that, in its view, neither policy violates the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.
"This isn’t some radical theory," Brnovich told USA TODAY. "First and foremost, a majority of states have statutes similar to Arizona's when it comes to out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting."
Brnovich said the state’s overall voting system – including a 27-day window to cast an early ballot – makes it easy for racial and ethnic minorities and nonminorities to vote. Roughly 8 in 10 Arizonans cast early ballots in 2016, according to court documents. On Election Day, 99% of minorities and 99.5% of nonminorities vote in the correct precinct – a difference, the state argued, that is not statistically significant.
Supreme Court to debate voting rights case that advocates worry will limit access to polls
The Arizona voting rights case comes to the Supreme Court eight years after it struck down another central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
www.usatoday.com
When it is said that election fraud is rare, they mean it hasn't been proved to be more prevalent. Which is true, cuz it's hard to prove in a court of law due to a lack of evidence that will stand up in court. But that does not mean election fraud doesn't occur just because it hasn't been proven.
"About 165 bills that would restrict voting have been introduced this year in 33 states this year", now that's interesting. We'll see how it goes in 2022 an 2024.
