The biggest voting rights case of the term is headed to SCOTUS TOMORROW, Brnovich v. DNC

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Democracy Docket
@DemocracyDocket
🚨ALERT: The biggest voting rights case of the term is headed to #SCOTUS TOMORROW, Brnovich v. DNC. Here’s a breakdown of how this Arizona case got started and what’s at stake. THREAD🧵:
7:46 AM · Mar 1, 2021

Unrolled thread here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1366399410381479939.html


🚨ALERT: The biggest voting rights case of the term is headed to #SCOTUS TOMORROW, Brnovich v. DNC. Here’s a breakdown of how this Arizona case got started and what’s at stake. THREAD🧵:
This case started in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder, when Arizona was released from the preclearance requirement and the DOJ/D.C. Federal District Court no longer had to approve changes to their voting laws. After Shelby, AZ started passing voter suppression laws. (1/12)

One law made it a felony to return someone’s ballot, a practice known as ballot collection. Ballot collection is used in Hispanic communities, where activists use it for GOTV drives, and in Native American communities, where it can be harder to access the postal service. (2/12)

(Side note: the AZ GOP passed laws against ballot collection in 2016 after spreading a racially-tinged video that falsely accused a Hispanic man of dropping off fraudulently “harvested” ballots.) (3/12)

Another AZ law challenged is out-of-precinct (OOP) voting rules. Some counties in AZ require voters to go to a specific polling location while in other counties, voters can go to any location in the county. If a voter goes to the wrong precinct, their ballot is thrown out. (4/12)

AZ’s polling locations change CONSTANTLY, so it can be hard to know what the right location is, leading to OOP voting. Voters of color are 2X as likely to vote OOP and account for the majority of OOP ballots thrown out in AZ (think thousands of ballots every election). (5/12)

These laws disproportionately target Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters in Arizona and suppress their rights. So in 2016, Democrats and voters sued AZ election officials saying these laws violated Section 2 of the VRA: democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl… (6/12)

In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Dems and struck down the laws. The court ruled that Arizona has a “long history of race-based voting discrimination” and that the laws “disproportionately undercount minority votes.” democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl… (7/12)

The AZ AG Mark Brnovich appealed to SCOTUS: democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…

The Arizona Republican Party—who intervened in the case—also filed a separate appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS agreed to consolidate and review the cases, against opposition from Dems. (8/12)

Lots of people filed briefs in support of either side. This included Ted Cruz, who is busy suppressing another state’s voters instead of looking after his own state: democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl… (9/12)

So why is this case so important? The case will test the strength of Section 2 of the VRA, which protects minority groups from voter discrimination. Without Sec. 5, Sec. 2 is the biggest protectant of voting rights. What SCOTUS decides will set a nationwide precedent. (10/12)

This case will either expand or limit the tools we have to fight voter suppression in court as we enter a crucial redistricting cycle. The stakes could not be higher. A strong VRA is necessary to protect minority voters’ right to cast their ballots and have them counted. (11/12)

Brnovich v. DNC will decide how strong the VRA is without Section 5. To stay informed tomorrow, follow @DemocracyDocket for updates and analysis, and for a more in-depth review of the case, click here 👉 democracydocket.com/2021/02/brnovi… END (12/12)
• • •

[SharonClark]

1. Very informative. Thanks for sharing.

[Mike 03]

2. Kicking for visiblity.

Thank you for posting this, Nevilledog!

[FakeNoose]

3. K & R bookmarked

Thanks!