The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision that two Arizona election laws were racially discriminatory in a 6-3 vote. However, the case has far-reaching implications beyond Arizona. The ruling severely limits the Voting Rights Amendment of 1965's power to block voting restrictions such as those being passed in Republican-led States. This could make it more difficult for voting rights advocates to win similar lawsuits in future.Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee dealt with two Arizona voting restrictions. One made it a crime (with some exceptions like for family members) to deliver an absentee ballot to another person, and one that threw away provisional ballots from voters who were not at the correct precinct. The 9th U.S. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Democratic plaintiffs, invalidating both restrictions on grounds that they disproportionately harmed voters of other races. It noted that only 18% of Native American voters in Arizona have regular mail service, and that African American, Hispanic, and Native American Arizonans were twice the likely to vote at the wrong precinct than white Arizonans. The Supreme Court, however, ruled on Thursday that the two restrictions were not in violation of Section 2 of the Voting rights Act. This prohibits racial discrimination and restored them.The court identified key points for Section 2 interpretation that it used in arriving at its decision. Although the court stated that it wasn't establishing a test for all Voting Rights Act Section 2, cases, these guidelines are an example of what future courts can use to guide them in ruling on voting-rights cases. This template is very conservative. The court wrote that courts should consider all the voting opportunities in a state when assessing the burden imposed on them by a challenged provision. Another factor that should be considered by courts when assessing the burden imposed on a challenged voting rule is the size of that burden. The court stated, specifically, that making it difficult to vote does not increase to the point of taking away one's right to vote.The court also noted that disparities in rules' impact on different racial and ethnic groups are important factors to consider. However, it is difficult to prove that racial discrimination occurred. Even neutral regulations can cause disparities in voting rates and noncompliance with the voting rules. A system may not be equally accessible or offer everyone equal voting opportunities just because there are differences in its impact.There's a reason (GOP) has tried to make voting more difficult: SilverThese guidelines have implications not only for the Arizona regulations but also for similar laws across the country. In 2021, at least 33 new voting restrictions have been enacted by Republican-controlled state governments. These restrictions range from stricter voter-ID laws, drop-box restrictions, and limits on absentee vote. Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act has been a crucial tool for liberals, who have failed to block these laws from the legislature to continue fighting them in court. Section 2 has been used by voting-rights advocates to sue against these new restrictions. This includes a controversial Georgia law, which required proof of identity in order to vote absentee. It also prohibited voters from receiving food or water while they waited. These lawsuits will need to pass higher hurdles in order to succeed, even in courts that may otherwise be sympathetic (and Brnovich v. DNC strongly suggests how such lawsuits might be decided if they wind up before the Supreme Court).Brnovich, v. DNC is the second major blow that the Supreme Court has dealt with the Voting Rights Bill under Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts has been a staunch opponent of the act since his time as a young staffer at Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice. The case Shelby County against Holder in 2013 shattered Section 5 of that act. This section requires that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination racial must preclear new voting rules with federal Department of Justice. The court declared the Section 4(b) formula for determining these jurisdictions obsolete and struck it down. Section 5 will no longer cover any jurisdictions until Congress adopts a new formula, which it has yet to do. Mother Jones' analysis showed that 26 states adopted new voting restrictions after the preclearance requirement was removed. This includes one of the Arizona laws in Brnovich.This ruling is the latest sign that Roberts-led courts will continue to limit the federal governments' say in state voting laws. Instead, they will defer more to the states. This has been a problem in Republican-controlled states in recent years. Five 5-4 Supreme Court rulings on voting rights cases were made between 2009 and 2019, with the conservative bloc in the majority. The court's decisions in Brnovich, DNC, and Shelby County, v. Holder have made it easier for states (Husted, v. A. Philip Randolph Institute), and has repeatedly refused to be involved in fixing gerrymandering. (Abbott, Rucho, v. Common Cause). It is still early to see how far the Roberts-led court will go, but it is clear that its 6-3 conservative majority has had a profound conservative impact on election law.Many states are looking at new voting restrictionsThe reason Republicans are beginning to create their own climate agenda
