This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Thursday morning the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona’s voting rights case, upholding two voting restrictions in the state. The court split between its more and conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning justices 6-3.
The case was brought by the Democratic National Committee and backed by Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
In Arizona and across the nation, states know best how to manage their own elections. The RNC is proud to have worked closely with the Arizona GOP to support this historic victory, and we will continue our comprehensive efforts to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. (2/2)
— Ronna McDaniel (@RonnaMcDaniel) July 1, 2021
The Hill reports:
One Arizona policy at issue in Thursday’s case requires provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be discarded. The second measure makes it illegal for most third parties to deliver ballots for others, a practice critics refer to as “ballot harvesting.”
Thursday’s ruling comes eight years after the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which dealt with another provision of the Voting Rights Act. There, the court eliminated the government’s preclearance authority under Section 5 of the law, which had allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to screen proposed changes to voting procedures in states with a history of racial discrimination in elections.
In striking down the preclearance requirement in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 majority, said the Voting Rights Act could continue to guard against racially discriminatory voting laws after-the-fact through Section 2 of the law, the provision at issue in Thursday’s case.
The challenge to Arizona’s voting restrictions marked the first time the Supreme Court addressed a vote-denial lawsuit brought under Section 2, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. Proving a violation requires showing either that lawmakers intended discrimination, or that a voting restriction has a discriminatory impact.
