The Supreme Court slammed the Democratic Party Committee with a major decision on election integrity that makes it harder for individuals to claim racial discrimination against election integrity laws. With a vote of 6-3, Supreme Court upheld one Arizona statute that bans ballot harvesting and a policy that throws out the ballots of individuals who voted in the wrong precinct, including potentially unlawful out-of-state voters. Democrats and far-left groups argued, without evidence, that these policies disproportionately burden minority voters.
Justice Alito: Preventing Voter Fraud is a “Legitimate” State Interest
Written by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority opinion is a major blow to the DNC and far-left groups that have labeled any effort to secure trust in our electoral processes “Jim Crow 2.0.” Justice Alito outlined “guideposts” for challenges to election laws under Section II of the Voting Rights Act, says SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe. Alito said that preventing voter fraud is a “clear and entirely legitimate state interest.” Justice Elena Kagan critiqued the conservative majority claiming that the Court’s ruling weakens the Voting Rights Act.
Five Guideposts as Outlined by the Court
The first guidepost presented by the Court is that “inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate” a violation of Section II of VRA. Alito claims that the size of the burden is “highly relevant,” because every voting rule imposes “a burden of some sort.”
Second, the Court ruled that voting practices in 1982 need to be considered, as “in 1982 States typically required nearly all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day and allowed only narrow” categories of voters to vote absentee.
The size of the alleged disparate impact should also be considered in election lawsuits. For instance, if a minority voter was impacted by a law, courts need to analyze whether other minority voters were affected. “What are at bottom very small differences should not be artificially magnified,” wrote Alito.
The fourth and fifth guideposts tackle other “opportunities provided by a State’s entire system of voting when assessing the burden imposed” and “the strength of the state interests” in protecting against voter fraud, respectively.
A Previously Silent Supreme Court
This is the first action the Court has taken since the 2020 presidential election, when the Court remained relatively silent in the legal fights for election integrity, attempting to avoid backlash from the Democratic Party’s Pack the Court push. On December 12, 2020, President Trump slammed the Supreme Court’s decision to reject a Texas lawsuit that sought to throw out election results in four states where massive evidence of election irregularities appeared. This decision also presents a potential end to the claims by Democrats and GOP members that there is no voter fraud in the US because courts have refused to hear election integrity lawsuits.
The Fight is Far From Over
While today’s decision is a major win for all Americans who care for our electoral processes, the fight is far from over. New lawsuits and court rulings are to come. The Amistad Project’s Phill Kline celebrated the decision, saying this decision “sets an important precedent regarding the proper role of states in managing their own elections,” an issue that Amistad has fought in courts.
Americans can only hope that the Supreme Court decides to continue to uphold our laws and our Constitution. But for now, Americans should celebrate that the Court believes that common-sense fact that “fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”
This article originally appeared on the American Voter’s Alliance.