Voting rights act.......Supreme Court.......what does this mean?

[a kennedy]

The Supreme Court on Thursday said two provisions of Arizona voting law that restrict how ballots can be cast do not violate the historic Voting Rights Act that bars regulations that result in racial discrimination.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

[hedda_foil]

1. It means we're fucked.

[a kennedy]

4. I kinda thought so........just wanted confirmation......

🤬🤬🤬

[diehardblue]

5. My thoughts exactly!

[agingdem]

6. no it doesn't

don't underestimate the American people...the harder they make it to vote the more we're determined to vote...look at the 2020 general election...Trump, Barr, DeJoy did everything they could to rig the election, and yet, people stood in line for hours to cast their ballots...that's what's going to happen...and if you think Biden and Garland weren't ready for this then you haven't been paying attention...the damn sky is not falling!!

[Elessar Zappa]

15. Not really.

We’re just going to have to educate our voters on the correct procedure.

[StarfishSaver]

28. No, we're not

We just have to work harder.

John Lewis and Fannie Lou Hamer didn't give up under much worse circumstances. We have no excuse.

[PunkinPi]

2. That "we the people" lost. nt

[edhopper]

3. It means the Roberts Court

will uphold all the anti-voting laws that are being passed and the Republicans will win elections from here forward.

[Hoyt]

7. Sorry, but I don't see how this is devastating. First, how hard is it to get to the right precinct?

I think Democrats are smart enough to get that right. Those few who can't determine their correct precinct should be able to call local Dem organizations for help.

Nor, do I see it a particular problem to deliver your own ballots, either in person or putting in in the mailbox outside your door.

Now, I don't believe the laws were necessary, but they are not devastating unless we think Democrats are stupid or helpless. Now, if the Supreme Court rules something like you have have a chip implanted to vote, we've got a serious problem. But they aren't going to rule that.

[FBaggins]

10. It's devastating if it blocks all of the voting rights lawsuits now pending

For example - it could kill the DOJ lawsuit against GA if it says the wrong things. I haven't read it yet... but if Alito wrote it and Kagan had a long dissent... there's a really good chance that it's deadly.

[Hoyt]

11. They ruled on two relatively inconsequential matters. Georgia's law is not nearly as bad

as people think. Even Stacy Abrams and Atlanta Mayor Bottoms recognize that educating the public is the key to keeping the law from hurting voting.

There are some aspects of the Georgia law that are concerning, like giving the state some limited power to remove a local election board. But even that provision severely limits what the state can do. I suspect the SCOTUS will not be as quick to approve of that aspect of the law.

But, never miss an opportunity to yell that the "sky is falling."

[FBaggins]

12. I'm sorry... they are in no sense inconsequential

I don't care about the specifics of ballot collection (etc.). Those ARE inconsequential.

But that isn't how it works. The key is in why the 9th Circuit found them to be unconstitutional... and how SCOTUS overturned that rationale.

The 9th said that a law can be unconstitutional if it has a disparate impact on minorities. SCOTUS just said that isn't good enough. That will have an impact on every one of the pending voting rights lawsuits.

You simply can't read Kagan's dissent and call the decision "relatively inconsequential"

[Hoyt]

14. OK, let's just tell everyone to give up because they can't vote at the wrong precinct or

have some politically aligned group pick up your ballots.

I don't think minorities are more likely to vote at the wrong precinct. Sorry.

[FBaggins]

16. Again - you're focusing on the specific AZ laws in question

Few people care much about those.

They DO care about being able to challenge other voting laws that arguably have a disparate impact on minorities' ability to vote.

Try reading the dissent. This is far larger than whether minorities are impacted by requirements to case a vote in your own precinct.

[Hoyt]

17. Don't think Court's decision precludes other challenges. Not going to scream "the sky is falling."

[FBaggins]

24. Again - Try reading the dissent

Citations removed for clarity - emphasis mine.

If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy
and racial equality. And it dedicates our country to carrying them out. Section 2, the provision at issue here, guarantees that members of every racial group will have equal voting opportunities. Citizens of every race will have the same shot to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. They will all own our democracy together—no one more and no one less than any other.

If a single statute reminds us of the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it was—and remains—so necessary. Because a century after the Civil War was fought, at the time of the Act’s passage, the promise of political equality remained a distant dream for African American citizens. Because States and localities continually “contriv[ed] new rules,” mostly neutral on their face but discriminatory in operation, to keep minority voters from the polls. Because “Congress had reason to suppose” that States would “try similar maneuvers in the future”— “pour[ing] old poison into new bottles” to suppress minority votes. Because Congress has been proved right.

...snip...

Today, the Court undermines Section 2 and the right it provides. The majority fears that the statute Congress wrote is too “radical”—that it will invalidate too many state voting laws. So the majority writes its own set of rules, limiting Section 2 from multiple directions. Wherever it can, the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language. And then it uses that reading to uphold two election laws from Arizona that discriminate against minority voters. I could say—and will in the following pages—that this is not how the Court is supposed to interpret and apply statutes. But that ordinary critique woefully undersells the problem. 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. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about “the end of discrimination in voting.” I respectfully dissent.

Again - the problem isn't that two comparatively minor laws in a small state were upheld. It's that the majority just enshrines a precedent that allows republicans in lots of states to pass laws that arguably discriminate against minority voters.

Limiting Section II of the Voting Rights Act is devastating. Whether you think it or not.

[Bettie]

23. The problem is that the majority opinion said

that if a law has a disproportionate impact on minority communities, that's cool, no problem with it, it's all good, because who wants those guys to vote anyway?

[Hoyt]

25. Could you point me to where the majority opinion says that?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. In urban areas, precinct locations often change without notice, and at random.

Multiple precincts are also often crammed together in a single location, so yes, it can be very difficult under certain situations.

The "deliver your own ballot" law is aimed specifically at Native Americans in reservations who generally do not have mailboxes outside their doors, or even regular mail service, and often need to travel prohibitively long distances in order "deliver their own ballots in person". This would also have a devastating effect on elderly or disabled people who are homebound.

These laws are potentially devastating to Democrats, even without them being "stupid or helpless". Rs engage in voter suppression strategies because they know they work. But maybe things will be fine, as you predict. We'll find out in 2022.

[Hoyt]

20. GOPers aren't elderly or disabled? You probably have a point about Native Americans, but I

bet there are options.

[Zeitghost]

27. Well said

The vast majority of these laws are not meaningful for our side or theirs. Elections are not won and lost over a few people getting their precinct mixed up. Like you, I agree they aren't necessary nor do they serve to protect the integrity of our elections, but they also aren't the end to democracy.

[StarfishSaver]

29. What's it going to take for you to think a voter suppression measure you think is a problem?

[Hoyt]

33. Oh, a voter ID requirement that can't be met by minorities. What's it going to take for you to

realize that both sides have elderly, poor, disabled, etc., and with proper education -- as Stacy Abrams and Atlanta Mayor Bottoms pointed out -- there is no reason we can't beat these stupid laws? If some rube state says people can't vote until 1:00 PM on Sunday, I suspect Senator and Reverend Warnock, and others, will simply move church hours to show the MFers we won't be intimidated into not voting.

I think it's a mistake if you want to give up and encourage others to do so.

[StarfishSaver]

35. What makes you think I have "given up and encourage others to do so"?

I'm simply trying to get people to understand what is happening here - and challenging those who shrug and say, "There's nothing racist about any of these laws..."

[Hoyt]

37. Didn't say there is nothing racist about anything GOPers pass. I do think every Democrat I have

ever met has the capacity to get their vote in or seek help. If they need help, that is what local Democratic organizations, Stacy Abrams' organization, etc., are there for.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Yes, I know

It's only all those black people just tried harder, this wouldn't be a problem ...

Pretty much everything can be overcome if people know how, have the wherewithal to figure it out, and have time, knowledge and resources to jump through the extra hoops needed to do it.

Black people in Alabama and the 1950s could have just memorized the US state constitutions, the declaration of Independence and all of the states elections codes in order to pass the literacy tests. So what if this extra work is disproportionately forced on black voters in order to exercise a right the vast majority of white voters can enjoy without an extra thought or extraordinary effort. It's ultimately doable, so that's all that matters. Right?

[Hoyt]

40. Well familiar will poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. None

of this comes close. Be realistic. At least you acknowledge this can be handled with a little education.

[StarfishSaver]

42. I never said it could be handled with "a little education."

I would never be that dismissive of how difficult things are for some people for whom "a little education" is not as easy to come by as you think.

[Deminpenn]

32. Precincts do move or people move and don't know

the right precinct. Whenever this happened at my poll, we were able to call the election board and get info on if the voter was registered and where and the right poll. Then we directed them to where they needed to go. All the voting precincts were also listed in the newspaper and we usually had that to refer to if the voter could provide their precinct. We always tried and usually succeeded in getting the voter to the right place.

The poll workers at each precinct generally live in the precinct they are serving. We knew our voters. I doubt we were the exceptions to the rule.

[Hoyt]

34. Exactly. We can beat these MFers with commonsense and a little education.

[lagomorph777]

36. "...if the Supreme Court rules something like you have have a chip implanted..." - hey, we're good!

After all, Dems are the ones who have been getting vaccinated with the Bill Gates chip...

[Hoyt]

38. Good point. Maybe we should push for that.

[Johnny2X2X]

8. Read up on this

This was two very limited issues with other people returning absentee ballots and people voting in the wrong locations. Not a huge deal.

[Polybius]

26. Exactly

Vote in the right spot, and if you're having someone drop off the ballot for you, make sure it's a family member of caretaker.

[StarfishSaver]

30. That may be easy for some people.

Not so much for others.

Which is the goal, otherwise there would be point in limiting it this way.

[bearsfootball516]

9. Obviously you'd prefer they get struck down, but they're not really influential.

These deal with very, very limited situations. The amount of people who cast provisional ballots is TINY. The amount who then do it in the wrong precinct is probably a fraction of a fraction.

[FBaggins]

41. Which of the new laws do you think ARE influential?

Because this ruling affects all of them.

A SCOTUS precedent that says "The disparate-impact model employed in Title VII and Fair Housing Act cases is not useful here." is devastating for the lawsuits challenging GA's new laws (along with many other states)

[Calista241]

19. It means the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia is going nowhere.

[StarfishSaver]

31. No, it doesn't. Not at all

Garland and DOJ were very strategic. Among other things, They didn't limit the allegation to disparate treatment, which this court hamstrung. Their complaint includes allegations of intentional discrimination, which this Case did not touch.

[FBaggins]

43. I'm afraid that's far too optomistic

At least you recognize that their disparate impact argumentation just got thrown out. But proving intentional discrimination is far harder than proving a disparate impact. The closest allegation that I've seen is that legislators knew there would be a discriminatory impact when they passed the law and that was evidence of their intent. That isn't going to fly now.

Plus... they just buffed the state interest argument substantially. My understanding was that Arizona wasn't able to demonstrate any related fraud... yet the ruling calls that a "strong and entirely legitimate state interest".

[StarfishSaver]

44. I'm not being optimistic

I'm being pragmatic and figuring out how to work with what we have, not wishing things were different or assuming we're screwed.

[FBaggins]

45. I have no challenge there

One does the best one can with what is available.

[Amishman]

21. It means that that 'disparate impact' isn't enough

We'll need to find other arguments and tools to challenge these.

Disparate Impact is a tricky angle overall, and not just with voting. Thanks to cultural, economic, and geographic splits along racial lines; almost anything can be fit into that box with enough mental gymnastics.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

22. It give the GOP carte blanche to throw wrenches into the voting process

Which it has pretty much perfected.

A Party of ignorance should not have this much power and the dupe's on the court are not helping.

When majority 6 of the justices come from position of Upper middle class privilege(yeah Clarence you are an entitled upper middle class man), they will never understand the struggle to vote and frankly they don't care.

We need more Stacey Abrams, but we shouldn't have to need that...