Today in Brnovich v. DNC, Justice Alito wrote for a 6-3 Court that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and ban on ballot harvesting are consistent with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. /1
Section 2’s purpose of eliminating racial discrimination is extremely important, but the Arizona measures are not discriminatory. Both provisions help make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. /2
Arizona’s provisions are not outliers. Over two dozen states—including Connecticut, Delaware and Illinois—have measures like Arizona’s that limit voting outside a voter’s own precinct. /3
Likewise, many other states have substantially similar ballot collection laws to Arizona’s, which makes it a felony to collect and deliver another person’s completed ballot (with exceptions for family members, caregivers, mail carriers and election officials). /4
As Attorney General Brnovich made clear at oral argument, “regardless of who they are or their background, Arizona provides a plethora of options for people” to vote. /5
The Court described the Ninth Circuit’s use of statistics as "highly misleading" and "statistical manipulation" trying to show racial disparity where… (cont) /6
… in 2016, "99% of Hispanic voters, 99% of African-American voters, and 99% of Native American voters ... cast their ballots in the right precinct, while roughly 99.5% of non-minority voters did so." /7
Importantly, Justice Alito’s opinion outlined guideposts that seem to make future challenges to election integrity laws much more difficult to win. Among them, how a rule compares to “The burdens associated with the rules in widespread use when §2 was adopted [in 1982].” /8 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
