SCOTUS Upholds Arizona Election Law Reforms

[BabyBoomer50s]

The news editors at NBC apparently are not happy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...izona-voting-laws-test-voting-rights-n1272892

 

[pecksniff]

"This significantly dilutes the Voting Rights Act," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of Califorinia, Irvine. "Minority groups will now have to meet a much higher standard beyond showing that a change presents a burden to voting. It puts a thumb on the scale for the states."

<snip>

Thursday's ruling said Arizona did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it passed a law in 2016 allowing only voters, their family members or their caregivers to collect and deliver a completed ballot. The court also upheld a longstanding state policy requiring election officials to throw out ballots accidentally cast in the wrong precincts.

Lawyers for the state said they wanted to prohibit "unlimited third-party ballot harvesting," which they called a commonsense way to protect the secret ballot. They said the out-of-precinct rule was intended to prevent fraudulent multiple voting.

But Arizona Democrats said the state had a history of switching polling places more often in minority neighborhoods and locating them in places intended to cause mistakes. And the Democrats said minority voters are more likely to need help turning in their ballots. In many states where ballot collection is legal, community activists offer it to encourage voting, they said.

This ain't exactly a win you can be proud of.

 

[Rightguide]

Lots of soiled diapers over at the DNC today.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

This ain't exactly a win you can be proud of.

You seem to disagree with SCOTUS. Sorry for your loss. Thoughts and prayers.

 

[ll74]

This ruling was fairly limited in scope, and I have no issue with it. What should be challenged is the ability for states to limit the number of polling places in precincts of significant size and any changes to polling locations that are not properly communicated. That would eliminate the issue of voters accidentally voting in the wrong precinct.

As for collection of ballots, that should be designated by the voter at the time of registration to eliminate issues there.

 

[CornusKousa]

This ain't exactly a win you can be proud of.

Why not?

 

[pecksniff]

Why not?

Because the legislation at issue is a solution to a nonproblem, voter fraud, and clearly has no real intent but to erect obstacles to minority voters.

 

[Rightguide]

The SCOTUS upheld the AZ ban on "ballot harvesting," which is a big deal with ramifications for the entire nation.

 

[pecksniff]

The SCOTUS upheld the AZ ban on "ballot harvesting," which is a big deal with ramifications for the entire nation.

It does not lead to fraud, so what is wrong with it?

 

[CornusKousa]

Because the legislation at issue is a solution to a nonproblem

Says the "communism for social justice" proponent who can't actually point to any systemic racism.

 

[pecksniff]

Says the social justice proponent who can't actually point to any systemic racism.

A thing you always appear to avoid recognizing by defining it out of existence. Voter fraud is a thing that more definitely exists or does not.

 

[HisArpy]

Because the legislation at issue is a solution to a nonproblem, voter fraud, and clearly has no real intent but to erect obstacles to minority voters.

Actually, had that been true, the SCOTUS wouldn't have said that the laws don't violate Art 2.

So, whatever you want to think these laws do, it ain't that.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It does not lead to fraud, so what is wrong with it?

Probably not a lot. Nobody can prove if or how often it occurs. What we do know is that every step in chain of custody expands the potential for fraud. It’s probably not a good idea to have political operatives doing that. There’s no need for it if mail in balloting is allowed as it is just about everywhere.

 

[pecksniff]

Actually, had that been true, the SCOTUS wouldn't have said that the laws don't violate Art 2.

Under its present formation, it would.

 

[Rightguide]

It does not lead to fraud, so what is wrong with it?

^^^
More of those "cantillating their hum chants" I posted about. It's a steady drone.

 

[pecksniff]

Probably not a lot. Nobody can prove if or how often it occurs. What we do know is that every step in chain of custody expands the potential for fraud. It’s probably not a good idea to have political operatives doing that. There’s no need for it if mail in balloting is allowed as it is just about everywhere.

Well, that's another thing they're trying to shut down.

 

[HisArpy]

Under its present formation, it would.

So now you're saying that the Court is politically biased?


Lol.

An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court's opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.

That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...cs-wave-unanimous-decisions/story?id=78463255

 

[pecksniff]

So now you're saying that the Court is politically biased?

It obviously was when it gutted the VRA in 2013. Have we any reason to think it has improved since then?

 

[HisArpy]

It obviously was when it gutted the VRA in 2013. Have we any reason to think it has improved since then?

Oh you really had to google and reach well into the past for that one, didn't you?

Newsflash, the court "as it's presently constituted" isn't the same as it was in 2013. You know, when the progressives and conservatives were fairly equally split when they supposedly "gutted the Voting Rights Act."

4 progressive justices and 4 conservative justices with Kennedy in the middle (as he always seemed to be since he was sworn in).

And this is the same court which upheld ObamaCare as Constitutional.

 

[Lazaran]

.
What a surprise that Harpy is being intellectually dishonest about the SCOTUS ruling.

The fact that the AZ law favors republicans relates directly to how the republican justices voted. A 6-3 partisan vote from the republican packed court.

There has been a pattern of that since the republican justices controlled the court.

 

[ll74]

.
What a surprise that Harpy is being intellectually dishonest about the SCOTUS ruling.

The fact that the AZ law favors republicans relates directly to how the republican justices voted. A 6-3 partisan vote from the republican packed court.

There has been a pattern of that since the republican justices controlled the court.

Except that there hasn't been a pattern. Most cases this session have not been 6-3.

 

[Lazaran]

Except that there hasn't been a pattern. Most cases this session have not been 6-3.

When it comes to voting laws there has.

This is all about court sanctioned voter suppression.

With no public option and no penalty, the ACA ruling is a joke.

People need to pay attention to the quality and the consequences of the "wins".

 

[ll74]

When it comes to voting laws there has.

This is all about court sanctioned voter suppression.

With no public option and no penalty, the ACA ruling is a joke.

People need to pay attention to the quality and the consequences of the "wins".

1 case.

The ACA ruling was not a ruling...it was a copout.

I don't care about "wins"....patterns...

22% of the cases this term have been along party lines...not a pattern.

 

[Lazaran]

1 case.

The ACA ruling was not a ruling...it was a copout.

I don't care about "wins"....patterns...

22% of the cases this term have been along party lines...not a pattern.

Ignoring the content of my comment doesn't change its validity.

 

[ll74]

Ignoring the content of my comment doesn't change its validity.

Validity towards which argument? You've made three in this short back and forth.