baby直播app

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold two contentious laws in Arizona that impose restrictions on voting: one that required election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct and another that prohibits people from collecting ballots and delivering them to polling places. The move听paves the way for states to pass more rigid voter laws that many fear will听restrict participation from minority groups.

The ruling calls into question the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was implemented in part to protect voting access for minority groups. Doug Spencer, a professor of election law at baby直播app Law, explains how the Supreme Court came to the ruling and what it means for the future of voting rights in the United States.

What happened?

The plaintiffs in Arizona听argued that two provisions of the state鈥檚 election law violated the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), because the provisions had a disparate impact on minority voters.听

The VRA forbids states from passing election laws 鈥� in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote...on account of race or color.鈥� This clause is often referred to as the 鈥渞esults test.鈥� Previously, the VRA had only ever been interpreted in cases dealing with vote dilution (like redistricting) and never in cases dealing with vote denial (like voter ID, ballot harvesting). As a result of several cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 鈥渞esults test鈥� does not apply to cases of vote dilution. This means plaintiffs must show that any disparate impact on minority voters either interacted with social and historical conditions, or was the product of intentional and targeted discrimination.

In the most recent case, , plaintiffs argued听vote denial cases were different and that it should be enough to show that minority communities were disproportionately impacted by a state鈥檚 election law, regardless of the state legislature鈥檚 intent. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

Most election law scholars (myself included) anticipated this outcome. The conservative Justices on the Supreme Court have been loudly and repeatedly skeptical of disparate impact standards in other civil rights cases such as听听补苍诲听. But what was unclear before last week was just what kind of evidence the Supreme Court thinks听蝉丑辞耻濒诲听be introduced to show a violation of the VRA in vote denial cases.

How does this ruling impact the future of voter restriction legislation?

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito provides a five-part test for plaintiffs in future cases. To prevail, plaintiffs must now provide evidence that (1) the burden on minority voters is severe, (2) the limit on voting was not widespread in 1982 when Congress penned the 鈥渞esults test,鈥� (3) the law produced a significant racial disparity in practice, (4) voting across the state鈥檚 entire electoral system is not open, and (5) the state鈥檚 justification for the law is unwarranted.

In practice, this five-part test will be nearly impossible for plaintiffs to satisfy in the future, no matter where they live. In particular, because voting has become more accessible in every jurisdiction across the country since 1982, plaintiffs will have a hard time satisfying prongs three and four. But the final prong is perhaps the most important. So long as a state听claims听to have a good reason for limiting the right to vote, plaintiffs will lose. It doesn鈥檛 matter if the state鈥檚 justification is flawed, or if the state鈥檚 law isn鈥檛 actually congruent with the justification. So, for example, a state only needs to argue that it is trying to combat voter fraud and it will win, even if there is no evidence of voter fraud and even if the state鈥檚 law (e.g., dropping off a ballot in a neighboring precinct) has no relationship to fraud.

What grounds did the Court have to make that decision?听

The majority based its decision on its reading of the text of the VRA. It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not say that the VRA itself was unconstitutional (which would have been quite extreme), only that the language of the VRA didn鈥檛 implicate the challenged laws in Arizona. This means that the ball is in Congress鈥檚 court. Congress has the power to amend the language of the VRA in a way that would overrule the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision. The House and Senate are both currently debating the听听which would be the most natural vehicle for a congressional response.

Does this ruling jeopardize voting rights for minority groups in other states?

Yes. Because the Supreme Court said that it will basically defer to state legislatures in every case, and because state legislatures are听听that disproportionately impact minority communities, last week鈥檚 decision will prevent these communities from filing lawsuits to protect their rights. Instead, these minority communities will need to rely on the political process to protect their rights. The challenge, of course, is that it鈥檚 the political process that has made it more difficult for minority communities to have a voice.

Could voting laws in baby直播app be affected?

baby直播app is on the very forefront of voter accessibility. baby直播app residents have the option to vote by mail, vote early, and to cast a provisional ballot if there are administrative errors at a polling place. None of these options were available to baby直播app voters in 1982. In theory, the state legislature could roll back voting rights in baby直播app quite significantly without any recourse in the courts.

I think a more important consideration is how last week鈥檚 ruling could be affected by baby直播app鈥檚 voting laws. The very fact that baby直播app鈥檚 accessible electoral system is free and fair, that Republicans and Democrats run successful campaigns in the state, and that voter confidence is very high, undermines the arguments in other states that easy access to the ballot is fraudulent, partisan, or dangerous.听

Why aren't there standardized federal voting laws for all states to follow?

The U.S. Constitution听听to run elections. This authority stems from deep reservations in the 1770s about the emerging federal government, and the idea that elections are local affairs and should be entrusted to those closer to the action. Thus, deference to state legislatures makes sense, even though the result is a patchwork of rules and regulations.

But there is one hugely important caveat: States cannot administer their elections in a way that discriminates against minority voters. The听听makes this exceptionally clear: 鈥淭he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States听or by any State on account of race鈥︹�� The purpose of the VRA was to operationalize this promise of political equality, and to prevent states from passing laws 鈥渨hich result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote鈥�on account of race or color.鈥� The Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to defer to state laws that disproportionately deny the rights of minorities to vote is in tension with both the VRA and the U.S. Constitution.听