Thread by @RonColeman

"SCOTUS, in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that divided the court along ideological lines, upheld a pair of Arizona election rules that prohibit third parties from collecting mail-in ballots and disallow votes cast in the wrong precinct" wsj.com/articles/supre…

Important excerpts (from the official syllabus):

"Section 2 of the VRA provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules . . . §2 does not transfer the States’ authority to set non-discriminatory voting rules to the federal courts" >

"Having to identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the 'usual burdens of voting.' . . .

"A procedure that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies—minority and non-minority alike—[does not] render a system unequally open" >

"The [9th] Circuit ... viewed the State’s justifications for HB 2023 as tenuous largely because there was no evidence of early ballot fraud in Arizona. But prevention of fraud is not the only legitimate interest served by restrictions on ballot collection. . . ." >

"Third-party ballot collection [i.e., ballot harvesting] can lead to pressure and intimidation. Further, a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders"

(I think the last sentence above is yuge) >

"HB 2023 was not enacted with a discriminatory purpose, as the District Court found. Appellate review of that conclusion is for clear error . . . .

"The District Court’s interpretation of the evidence was plausible based on the record, so its [finding] is not clearly erroneous">

"The [9th Circ.] concluded that the District Court committed clear error by failing to apply a 'cat’s paw' theory—which analyzes whether an actor was a
“dupe” who was 'used by another to accomplish his purposes.' . . ." >

"That theory has its origin in employment discrimination cases and HAS NO APPLICATION TO LEGISLATIVE BODIES" (emphasis added)

Also an important holding in this decision, IMHO. <>

"The dissent ... would rewrite the text of §2 and make it turn almost entirely on just ... disparate impact. That is a radical project, and the dissent strains ... to obscure its objective ... spend[ing] 20 pages [on] matters that have little bearing on the questions before us "

"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"

Jersey Sam Alito bringing the 🔥

"According to the dissent, an interest served by a voting rule, no matter how compelling, cannot support the rule unless a 'State can prove to the satisfaction of the courts that this interest could not be served by any other means..."

Footnote 16: "Who knew"? 🤷‍♂️

"With all other circumstances swept away, all that remains in the dissent’s approach is the size of any disparity in a rule’s impact on members of protected groups. As we have noted, differences in employment, wealth, and education may make it virtually impossible for a State >

> "to devise rules that do not have some disparate impact. But under the dissent’s interpretation of §2, any 'statistically significant' disparity—wherever THAT is in the statute—may be enough to take down even facially neutral voting rules ..." (emph. added LOL)

"Radical" used for the second time on page 25 to refer to the dissent ... Alito giving no quarter...

Then this: >

"The dissent is correct that the VRA exemplifies our country’s commitment to democracy, but there is nothing democratic about the dissent’s attempt to bring about a wholesale transfer of the authority to set voting rules from the States to the federal courts." >

(Which of course is what Biden has also attempted to have Congress do right through last week... perhaps anticipating that this time, SCOTUS would not do it for him)

Another footnote takes a shot at reliance on statistical proof of "disparate impact analysis" - potentially *very* significant language:

And now it is time for the customary SCOTUS bombing of the 9th Circuit:

"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."

Now a pivot back to the dissent by Mr. Justice Snark-a-Plenty:

Whoa - how many times did those of working on the election litigation cut and paste THIS quote about absentee ballots, from the Carter-Baker Commission, into papers last fall?

Final shot on the "cat's paw" business:
"The 'cat’s paw' theory has no application to legislative
bodies. The theory rests on the agency relationship that
exists between an employer and a supervisor, but the legislators who vote to adopt a bill are not the agents of >

>" the bill’s sponsor or proponents. 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."🔥 >

Of course, many, many legislators are dupes, and many are tools. No few of them are both.

But what the majority is saying here is that, as a legal matter, a court may not deem them as such to wave away the separation of powers and substitute its own judgment for theirs

"Not a few" - is that what I meant? That's what I meant

Awesome gif though