The Supreme Court Upholds Arizona's Voting Restrictions
On July 1st, the Supreme Court voted to uphold Arizona's voting restrictions. This decision has a significant impact on voting rights across the United States.
The Case:
In recent years, Republicans in Arizona have passed bills that make voting difficult across the state. One law took away the ability for Arizona residents to cast ballots at precincts that are not their own. The majority of voters in Arizona did not use this practice, but it provided convenience to many voters as they were able to submit ballots in places that were more accessible to their location or needs. The second law made it illegal for someone to collect ballots and submit them to the proper precinct. This method of collecting ballots is called ballot harvesting. Again, the majority of people in Arizona do not submit their votes through ballot harvesting methods, but it has made voting easier for many residents.
Arizona's legislature passed these bills with the intent of protecting elections from voter fraud, despite there being a lack of evidence of voter fraud from any previous elections.
In efforts to combat these voting restrictions, Arizona's Democratic National Committee challenged these laws with the argument that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which "prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act." The DNC found that the impact of the laws disproportionately affected Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans.
The Arizona district court favored Arizona, so the DNC appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, sending the case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Upheld Arizona's Decision:
The case was argued in early March at the Supreme Court, and after much deliberation, the Court determined that the laws were not enacted with a racially motivated purpose. The vote was 6-3, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor gave the dissent.
What is important to know about the decision is that Section 2 of the VRA now has more limits because the Court has found that time, place, and manner restrictions on voting are not created to impact minority voters directly.
One positive note is the Supreme Court did not establish a test that would determine whether or not a law violates Section 2 of the VRA, which means that there is still some validity to the Act, and in the future, there might be a case that further tests the strength of Section 2.
What This Means For People with I/DD:
We are concerned about the long-lasting impacts of this decision on the decision to uphold Arizona's restrictions because it impacts people of color disproportionately and dramatically impacts individuals with disabilities. Not only does it allow voting to be more difficult in Arizona, but it allows other states to have a blueprint as to how to make voting harder without the fear of repercussions. With voting rights restricted, accessibility becomes more challenging for people in the I/DD community to vote, silencing their democratic rights.
If you are upset with the Supreme Court decision or are concerned about the future of voting rights in your state, it is vital that you do not stay silent. Right now, you can reach out to your representative and ask them about what they are doing to protect your right to vote. There are several opportunities for your representative to take action, like supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that would help ensure your protection against voting restrictions. The Court may have made an unfavorable decision, but hope is not lost.
