Thursday's decision to uphold Arizona's ban on ballot harvesting was hailed as a victory in election integrity and a tragedy regarding minority voting rights.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's restrictions on who can deliver a ballot for it to be counted didn't violate the Voting Rights act in a 6-3 decision. The law restricts who can deliver a ballot to the immediate family, personal caretaker and someone living in the same household.San Francisco's appellate court ruled that the law discriminated against minority voters, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote in support of the majority, disagreed.He said, "The mere existence of some disparity in the impact does not necessarily indicate that a system does not offer equal opportunities or is not open to all."Officials from the state reacted to this opinion.The Center Square heard that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said Thursday morning, "Today's verdict is a win in election integrity safeguards for Arizona." The Constitution permits states to adopt common-sense measures for voter integrity. It is possible to increase voter turnout while maintaining confidence in the integrity and fairness of the vote.Arizona's Democratic Party challenged the law and said that it sets a dangerous precedent.It is hard to overlook the fact that these voter restriction laws and this ruling are the culmination Republican long-term efforts to sow distrust in our electoral system. Party chair Raquel Tern stated that politicians such as Mark Brnovich led the charge. The Arizona Republican Party's lawyer revealed that the laws were intended to give them political advantage in open court. This is the latest evidence that Republican leaders are willing betray Arizona voters to gain political advantage.Secretary of State Katie Hobbs announced her candidacy last month for Arizona governor. She said that the ruling means Congress must take action to end discriminatory voting laws.Continue the storyShe stated that the Voting Rights Act was created to protect voters' rights and fight racial discrimination. One of the most important civil rights laws in our country was weakened by the Supreme Court. This is a sad day for democracy's future.Brnovich stated that these descriptions are an absolute mischaracterization the election integrity laws he was defending in court.He said that no one is being disenfranchised. Rather, such comments expose the hypocrisy on the left. Some states, such as New York, Connecticut, and Delaware require that you justify your absence from voting. While Arizona has made it easy to vote, we must also maintain integrity during the voting process.Sen. Michelle UgentiRita (R-Scottsdale), was the author of the legislation. She also criticised Democrats for mischaracterizing it.She said that four years ago, I had authored Arizona's ban on ballot harvesting. This was to preserve the integrity of our elections, and ensure fair and free elections in Arizona. Despite Democrats' constant attempts to manipulate the judiciary system to circumvent will of the people and to make false accusations of suppression and racism, I am happy that the U.S. Supreme Court listened to the voters.Opponents of the ban on ballot harvesting said that the opinion is yet another reason Congress should act upon H.R.1, which would establish federal voting standards and remove much of the states ability to govern their elections.Brnovich, who declared he will be running to unseat Democratic U.S. Senator Mark Kelly in 2022 said that the freshman senator and others who supported the proposal were seeking to undermine the Constitution's rights of the states.Brnovich stated that Kelly was sponsoring a bill to nationalize our elections. This would undermine the traditional concept of federalism. The federal government was created by the states. The federal government did not create the states.Washington Examiner VideosTags: Arizona Supreme Court, News, StatesOriginal Author: Cole Lauterbach from The Center SquareOriginal Location: Arizona officials react to Brnovich's win at the Supreme Court
