Oh, I am so happy to see an institution finally deciding fair and square, besides the fact the decision is not going hand in hand with the Democrat’s plans!
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
The election integrity laws that the Democrats are trying to prevent from happening, have been upheld!
“The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two Arizona voting restrictions that a lower court had said discriminated against minority voters, a ruling that suggests that it will be harder to successfully challenge a spate of new laws passed by state legislatures in the aftermath of the 2020 election,” the Washington Post reported.
“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion in the 6-to-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative majority in charge,” the report continued. “The court’s liberals joined an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan protesting that the decision weakens the shield provided by the Voting Rights Act (VRA), first passed in 1965 to forbid laws that result in discrimination based on race.”
Alito said that Arizona’s law generally makes it ‘easy to vote’ and he sided with the state’s election laws.
“In these cases, we are called upon for the first time to apply §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to regulations that govern how ballots are collected and counted,” Alito wrote in his opinion. “Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. All voters may vote by mail or in-person for nearly a month before election day, but
Arizona imposes two restrictions that are claimed to be unlawful. First, in some counties, voters who choose to cast a ballot in person on election day must vote in their own precincts, or else their ballots will not be counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter’s family member,
household member, or caregiver.”
“In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA,” Alito states. “Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting’… On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting. Not only are these unremarkable burdens, but the District Court’s uncontested findings show that the State made extensive efforts to reduce their impact on the number of valid votes ultimately cast.”
Alito makes an interesting note that statistics have been manipulated in many cases to make misleading arguments that voter laws suppress minority votes.
“The Court of Appeals attempted to paint a different picture, but its use of statistics was highly misleading for reasons that were well explained by Judge Easterbrook in a §2 case involving voter IDs,” Alito states. “As he put it, a distorted picture can be created by dividing one percentage by another… He gave this example: ‘If 99.9% of whites had photo IDs, and 99.7% of blacks did,’ it could be said that ‘blacks are three times as likely as whites to lack qualifying ID’ (0.3 ÷ 0.1 = 3), but such a statement would mask the fact that the populations were effectively identical.”