{"id":115057,"date":"2021-07-01T11:36:25","date_gmt":"2021-07-01T15:36:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=115057"},"modified":"2021-07-01T11:36:25","modified_gmt":"2021-07-01T15:36:25","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-upholds-arizona-voting-restrictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=115057","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-115059\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Democrats-on-signature-matching-for-governor-recall-vice-signature-match-for-2020-Presidential-election-audit.jpeg?resize=290%2C333&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" width=\"290\" height=\"333\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Democrats-on-signature-matching-for-governor-recall-vice-signature-match-for-2020-Presidential-election-audit.jpeg?resize=290%2C333&amp;ssl=1 290w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Democrats-on-signature-matching-for-governor-recall-vice-signature-match-for-2020-Presidential-election-audit.jpeg?resize=261%2C300&amp;ssl=1 261w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Democrats-on-signature-matching-for-governor-recall-vice-signature-match-for-2020-Presidential-election-audit.jpeg?w=640&amp;ssl=1 640w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 290px) 100vw, 290px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-3 decision, in support of an Arizona election law. The 9th Circuit argued that the Arizona law negatively impacted minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with them.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">From the Associated Press:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a conservative majority that the state&#8217;s interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures.<\/p>\n<p>The court rejected the idea that showing that a state law disproportionately affects minority voters is enough to prove a violation of the law.<\/p>\n<p>In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was weakening the landmark voting rights law for the second time in eight years.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten &#8212; in order to weaken &#8212; a statute that stands as a monument to America&#8217;s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about &#8216;the end of discrimination in voting.&#8217; I respectfully dissent,&#8221; Kagan wrote, joined by the other two liberal justices.<\/p>\n<p>Native Americans who have to travel long distances to put their ballots in the mail were more likely to be affected by the ballot collection law. Votes cast by Black and Hispanic voters were more likely to be tossed out because they were cast in the wrong precinct, the appeals court found.<\/p>\n<p>But Alito said the measures were at most &#8220;modest burdens&#8221; that did not violate the law.<\/p>\n<p>The challenged Arizona provisions remained in effect in 2020 because the case was still making its way through the courts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Associated Press has the article <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/us-supreme-court-arizona-voting-voting-rights-race-and-ethnicity-1a63621d6ebaa55e5ebae6c1fd02ae09\">here<\/a>. You could also read the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s decision at this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/20982221-brnovich-v-democratic-national-committee\">link<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-3 decision, in support of an Arizona election law. The 9th Circuit argued that the Arizona law negatively impacted minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with them. From the Associated Press: Justice Samuel [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":661,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[295],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4ozh1-tVL","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/661"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=115057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=115057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=115057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=115057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}