DNC v. Brnovich is here!! Held: "Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate §2 of the VRA, and HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
From Alito's opinion: "Second, we think it prudent to make clear at the beginning that we decline in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots..."
More from Alito: "But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. The size of any disparity matters." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
A couple of paragraphs that could be very important to the Section 2 litigation in the pipeline: 
More Alito: "For example, we think it inappropriate to read §2 to impose a strict “necessity requirement” that would force States to demonstrate that their legitimate interests can be accomplished only by means of the voting regulations in question."
A salty Alito says Kagan's dissent "quarrels with the decision in Shelby County v. Holder" "discusses all sorts of voting rules that are not at issue here," and "dwells on points of law that nobody disputes."
"Only after this extended effort at misdirection is the dissent’s aim finally unveiled: to undo as much as possible the compromise that was reached between the House and Senate when §2 was amended in 1982." Also says in footnote that dissent has "baseless reading" of a prev case
Another key quote from Alito's opinion: "But §2 does not deprive the States of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules, and that is precisely what the dissent’s radical interpretation would mean in practice..." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
there's math involved in this ruling too! this is another important paragraph for future section 2 litigation, much of which will rely on lots of stats about how different voting policies affect diff groups
yet another notable paragraph from Alito's opinion, esp re: the DOJ lawsuit challenging Georgia's new restrictions on out-of-precinct voting under Section 2 grounds
On AZ's ballot collection ban: Alito says that it doesn't go beyond "usual burdens," there's no statistical evidence of a disparate impact, and "Even if the plaintiffs had shown a disparate burden
caused by HB 2023, the State’s justifications would suffice to avoid §2 liability."
caused by HB 2023, the State’s justifications would suffice to avoid §2 liability."
On the finding that the "cat's paw" doctrine doesn't apply to legislatures: legislatures"Under our form of government, legislators have a duty to exercise their judgment and to represent their constituents. It is insulting to suggest that they are mere dupes or tools."
Kagan's dissent: "What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
