WASHINGTON (AP), The Supreme Court's conservative majority decided on Thursday to reverse a landmark voting rights law. This decision is likely to assist Republican states in fighting challenges to the voting restrictions they have imposed after last year's elections.A court ruled 6-3 that voting limits in Arizona, which a lower court found to be discriminatory under the federal Voting rights Act, were valid. This was the second major ruling by the court in eight years. Civil rights groups and liberal justices claim it weakened the Civil Rights-era law intended to eliminate discrimination in voting.This decision has sparked new calls for Democrats to pass federal legislation that would oppose the state laws, which was blocked by Senate Republicans. Liberal groups and some lawmakers also support changes to the Supreme Court that would expand the nine-justice bench.Even though the court's decision is harmful, it does not affect Congress' ability to repair the damage that has been done. It puts the responsibility back on Congress to restore Voting Rights Act to its intended strength. President Joe Biden stated in a statement.Republicans claim that state restrictions are a way to combat potential voter fraud and to ensure integrity in elections.Biden's Justice Department had in fact argued that Arizona measures were not violative of the Voting Rights Act. However, they preferred a more narrow ruling than the one given Thursday.Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last year established the rights dominance of a court with three former President Donald Trump appointees.Justice Samuel Alito's opinion reaffirmed an appellate ruling by deciding that Arizona's regulations regarding who can vote early for another person and refusing to count votes cast in the wrong precinct were not discriminatory.San Francisco's federal appeals court ruled that the measures adversely affected Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters. This was in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Law.Continue the storyAlito wrote that the state's interest was in the integrity and fairness of elections, and that voters would only have to bear a modest burden.The court rejected the notion that a state law that disproportionately affects minorities voters can be used to prove a violation.Justice Elena Kagan, in a sharp dissent, stated that the court was weakening federal voting rights laws for the second time within eight years."What is most tragic is the Court's attempt to rewrite the statute to weaken it. The statute is a monument of America's greatness and protects against its baser impulses. Tragic is the fact that the Court has damaged the statute intended to end discrimination in voting.Arizona's ballot collection law is most likely to affect Native Americans who must travel long distances to cast their ballots. According to the appeals court, votes cast by Hispanic and Black voters were more likely to be rejected because they were in an incorrect precinct.Rick Hasen, an election law expert, wrote that Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act was severely affected by the decision. He pointed out that the decision, along with other recent ones over the past fifteen years, have removed all major tools available for pursuing voting restrictions.Although this is not a fatal blow to Section 2 claims, it will make it more difficult for such challenges to succeed. Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine Law School, said.Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia was one of the Democrats who stated that the decision by the high courts raises the urgency for Congress and to pass comprehensive voting rights legislation.Republicans united against these measures means that Democrats would first have to amend Senate filibuster rules, which require 60 votes to pass most legislation.Because the case was still being heard by the courts, the Arizona provisions were not repealed in 2020.Arizona was narrowly won by Biden last year. Since 2018, two Democratic senators have been elected. Maricopa, Arizona's most populous, is currently under a Republican audit that challenges last year's vote.Eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's best tool to combat discriminatory voting laws had been removed by the Justice Department. A different provision of the federal law required either the government or a judge to remove voting changes from Arizona and other states mainly from the South.Many of the state actions that have been taken since then wouldn't have been permitted to take effect if there hadn't been an advance clearance provision in the Voting Rights Law.Section 2 was left in place, with its prohibition against rules making it more difficult for minorities to exercise the right to vote. The standard for proving violation of the law was at the core of the Arizona case.Alito reminded that Thursday's announcement by the court was not to govern all... claims involving rules such as those at issue here that set out the time, place or method for casting ballots,Despite the lack of evidence, many Republicans still question the outcome of the 2020 election. In response, Republican elected officials from a variety of states have enacted restrictions on early voting and mail-in ballots as well as stricter voter identification laws.Kagan highlighted some of the new laws she referred to in her dissident opinion.These laws reduce the time that polls are open on Election Day as well as before. They create new requirements for voting by mail and reduce the time it takes to return and apply for mail ballots. It is harder to register to vote and it is easier to remove voters from the rolls. She wrote that two laws ban giving food and water to voters who are waiting in line.Lawsuits against laws in Florida and Georgia are pending, with a Justice Department suit filed in Georgia last week. The lawsuits allege violations to the voting rights law.Ronna McDaniel, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, called Thursday's decision a major victory for electoral integrity and the rule-of-law. The Court rejected Democrats' attempts to make Arizona ballots less secure in order to gain political advantage. States know how to manage their elections best, both in Arizona and elsewhere across the country.Marc Elias, a Democratic Elections lawyer, promised that the legal battle against the new laws would continue. They are wrong to think that this decision will end our fight for voting rights. Elias tweeted that he would fight harder to protect voters against suppressive laws.___Christina A. Cassidy, Associated Press writer, contributed to this report in Atlanta.
