The Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two voting rules in the battleground state of Arizona, finding that the restrictions at issue in the case do not violate a key provision of the Voting Rights

The decision from the high court, which split 6-3 along ideological lines, comes as a raft of Republican-led states weigh new measures to tighten their election rules in the wake of the 2020 presidential race, which former President Donald Trump falsely claimed was rife with widespread voter fraud.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, writing that the state’s justifications for the rules, to preserve the integrity of its elections, sufficed to avoid violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision also outlined several factors to be considered when weighing future challenges under the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which place new limits on the provision and could make legal challenges to new election laws enacted by states more difficult.–167310913/–167311364/–167310913/–167311364/–167310913/–167311364/–167310913/–167311364/

Preventing voter fraud, for example, is a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest,” Alito wrote.

“Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome,” he said. “Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is also a valid and important state interest.”

Writing for the three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan lambasted the decision from the court’s six conservative members, warning it “undermines Section 2 and the right it provides.”

“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,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion. “What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *