The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Arizona law in a lawsuit against voting rights

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld two voting laws in Arizona, saying opponents have discriminated against racial minorities in a major decision that could make it more difficult to challenge. voting restrictions It was established in the US states.

The case, the Brnovich v Democratic National Committee, was based on two voting provisions in Arizona. The former banned the “collection of votes,” whereby the third party collects and leaves early voting. The latter led to the rejection of the votes cast in the wrong constituency.

In a 6-3 decision was released Thursday because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s voting laws were discriminatory.

The opinion was written by Samuel Alito, and five other Conservative jurists joined the nine-member chair: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Elena Kagan wrote dissent, along with two other Liberals, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Alito said the law did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election rules that “cause any citizen of the United States to deny or restrict their right to vote on the basis of race or color.”

“Outside Arizona’s regulations meet the requirement that voters who vote in advance on election day must do so in an assigned constituency. Identifying one’s constituents and then going to the polls does not exceed the ‘usual voting loads,'” Alito wrote. “On the contrary, these tasks are examples of the usual burdens of voting.”

Kagan argued that the court violated Article 2 “and the right it grants”.

“The majority fears that the statutes written by Congress are“ radical ”- that the state’s vote will invalidate too many laws,” he wrote. “So the majority writes its own set of rules, limiting section 2.”

U.S. President Joe Biden said he was “completely disappointed” with the decision, and promised to make efforts to protect and expand access to voting. “In just eight years, the court has done serious damage to two of the most important provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is the law to ensure fighting and strife for years,” he said in a statement.

The Voting Rights Act is a reference law passed by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1965 civil rights movement.

Nearly half a century later, the Supreme Court overturned the central provision of the law — which required changes to elections approved by certain federal governments and places — in its 2013 decision, Shelby County v Holder.

The debate over the right to vote has erupted from Shelby, and more recently, after Donald Trump said he ran against him in last year’s presidential election.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, at least 14 states have enacted 22 laws restricting access to voting from Jan. 1 to May 14 this year. A further 61 bills with at least restrictive provisions in 18 states are still being considered.

Most of the vote cuts are being pushed by Republican governors and state lawmakers. Washington Democrats have tried to counter these efforts by passing new federal voting laws.

A bill, the “People’s Law,” passed the Democrat-controlled house earlier this year, but it was stopped in the Senate after a 60-vote filibuster threshold was not cleared. A special legislature, an update of the Voting Rights Act named after the late John Lewis, is expected to take over the House this year.

Republicans cheered Thursday’s verdict. Republican National Committee chairman Ronna McDaniel said, “Democrats were trying to make Arizona’s votes less secure for political gain, and the court saw its partisan lies.”

Brnovich’s verdict comes at the end of the Supreme Court’s term, the first since Conservative Barrett entered the chair death Of the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett’s assertion pushed the court’s balance sheet to 6-3 in favor of jurists appointed by Republican presidents.

This year the court handed down a number of unanimous decisions and many cut ideological lines, with 6-3 rulings on the right to vote likely to raise concerns about the composition of the tribunal by progressives. In a second decision made 6-3 on Thursday, Conservative judges overturned a California law requiring tax-exempt charities to disclose the names and addresses of their donors.

Supreme Court judges nominate presidents for life, but their appointments must be ratified by a simple majority in the U.S. Senate.

If they have progressive activists he called BreyerElder justice, aside, U.S. President Joe Biden may appoint another liberal to his seat. Breyer, 82, has not commented on the matter.