Arizona Supreme Court upholds voting restrictions

Third, Judge Alito wrote that “the extent of inequality in the impact of a rule on members of different races or ethnic groups is an important factor.” ”

Fourth, the courts must consider all the ways in which voters can vote.

Fifth, he wrote, the courts should consider the reason for this ban. “A strong and completely legitimate government interest is to prevent fraud,” he wrote.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Korsch, Brett M.. Kavanagh and Amy Connie Barrett agreed on the majority opinion.

Judge Kagan said the list of the majority’s guidelines was a recipe for repressing voters.

“The list – not a test, the majority assures us, with the illusion of modesty – lays the deck against the voting rights of minority citizens,” he wrote. “Keep in mind that Congress made a law to protect those rights – the non-testing of the majority can save it because it prohibits any program.”

Two controls were problematic in the case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257. Election officials are required to reject votes cast in the wrong place. Another was the collection of votes for campaign workers, social activists and other people to cast at the polls, which critics call the “ballot harvest.” The law exempted family members, caregivers and election officials.

Judge Alito wrote that the two restrictions were legal under the court’s new guidelines.

The ban on early voting is justified because the burden of finding the right polling place is minimal, he wrote. There are other ways to vote, including by mail; The number of rejected ballots was small.

Judge Kagan looked at things differently.

“Arizona is a national foreigner in dealing with early votes, and the next worst culprit is nowhere to be found,” he wrote. “In 2012, about 35,000 ballots were cast across the country because they were placed in the wrong place. One-third of the votes cast in Arizona were rejected – 10,979.