Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Last updated

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2021
Decided July 1, 2021
Full case name Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
Docket nos. 19-1257
19-1258
Citations594 U.S. ___ ( more )
141 S.Ct. 2321
Case history
Prior
  • No. 2:16-cv-01065-DLR, motion denied (208 F. Supp. 3d 1074, D. Ariz., 2016)
  • No. 16-16698, motion denied, (840 F.3d 1057, 9th Cir., 2016)
  • No. 16-16698, motion granted (843 F.3d 366, 9th Cir. en banc, 2016)
  • No. 16A460, motion stayed (137 S. Ct. 446, 2016)
  • No. CV-16-01065-PHX-DLR, judgement granted (329 F.Supp. 3d 824, D. Ariz, 2018)
  • No. 18-15845, affirmed (904 F.3d 686, 9th Cir., 2018)
  • No. 18-15845, vacated and reversed (948 F.3d 989, 9th Cir. en banc, 2020)
Holding
Neither Arizona's out-of-precinct policy nor HB 2023 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose in mind.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceGorsuch, joined by Thomas
DissentKagan, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XV; Voting Rights Act of 1965

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and specifically the applicability of Section 2's general provision barring discrimination against minorities in state and local election laws in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder , which removed the preclearance requirements for election laws for certain states that had been set by Sections 4(b) and 5. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee involves two of Arizona's election policies: one outlawing ballot collection and another banning out-of-precinct voting. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision in July 2021 that neither of Arizona's election policies violated the VRA or had a racially discriminatory purpose.

Contents

Background

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was one of the most significant pieces of legislation to protect voter rights for minorities by preventing state and local governments from racial discrimination in their election laws. Passed during the civil rights movement, the VRA has been amended several times since passage and has seen a body of case law at the Supreme Court that is related to its various provisions and subsequent legislation amending the VRA in response to those decisions. Generally, the VRA has been upheld five times as constitutional. [1]

However, in a 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court effectively eliminated VRA's Section 5 "preclearance" requirement, which had mandated state and local governments in 15 states (those with a past history of voting rights violations) to seek permission from a federal court or the US Justice Department before making significant changes to voting laws. [lower-alpha 1] The majority in Shelby County held that Section 4(b)'s coverage formula, which had been last amended by Congress in 1975, was "unconstitutional in light of current conditions" and "based on decades-old data and eradicated practices." [2] [1] The Supreme Court's decision left it to Congress to amend Section 4(b)'s coverage formula, but until Congress does so, Section 5's preclearance mandate is no longer valid law. [2] [3]

Shelby County, by eliminating the preclearance requirements, allowed certain state and local governments to freely pass voting laws without first seeking permission from the Federal courts or the U.S. Justice Department. [4] A number of states passed new election laws ahead of the 2016 United States elections, which included the 2016 United States presidential election between the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, and the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. While some laws were passed to support improved voting access recommendations from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration under Barack Obama, other laws were passed, particularly in states with conservative leadership such as in the South, to prevent voter fraud by requiring stricter identification checks for voting and shifting and reducing early voting periods, among other measures. [5] [6]

Lower courts

The case primarily dealt with two election-related policies in Arizona, one being passed as a result of Shelby County. Arizona was one of the 15 states that had been included in the Section 4(b)/5 preclearance requirements until they were nullified by Shelby County. [7] An existing out-of-precinct policy from 1970 was shared by other states and requires election officials to reject ballots placed by voters that vote in the wrong precinct, including their votes for state and federal office. The new law, passed in 2016 as Arizona H.B. 2023 by the Republican-controlled Arizona State Legislature, made it a felony for anyone other than an election official or a family member or caregiver to handle or to collect a completed early voting or absentee ballot. The law thus banned ballot collection, a practice critics call "ballot harvesting." Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the bill into law and framed the legislation as similar to measures in 18 other states. Democratic lawmakers in Arizona questioned the lack of evidence related to voting fraud used to back the bill's passage. [8] [9]

Ahead of the election, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sued and challenged both policies. The DNC claimed that Arizona's policy to reject ballots cast in the wrong precinct violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments related to voters' rights. The DNC further stated that H.B. 2023 violated the Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA, [10] which states, "No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." [11] The DNC argued that the legislation directly discriminated against the state's Hispanic, African American, and Native American population. The DNC contended that the state legislature had purposely created H.B. 2023 to discriminate against minority voters by making it "particularly burdensome" for voters in counties with larger minority populations to vote, such as in Maricopa County, as they generally had fewer or no in-person voting locations. [4] [11]

The DNC initially sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Arizona from enforcing these laws and policy ahead of the 2016 election. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the injunction but was reversed on appeal to an en banc panel at the Ninth Circuit four days prior to the election that voted 6–5 to enforce the injunction. The state requested a stay of the Ninth Circuit's injunction from the Supreme Court, which it granted the next day and thus left both policies in place during the election while litigation continued. [12]

In May 2018, after a ten-day trial, the District Court ruled against the DNC by upholding Arizona's election laws as neither unconstitutional nor violating the VRA. [13] The initial appeal to a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel upheld the ruling, [13] but a majority of judges of the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc rehearing of the case and vacated the decision of the three-judge panel. [14]

Ninth Circuit

In January 2020, the eleven-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel reversed the judgment of the district court on a 7–4 vote and held that the ballot rejection policy and the absentee ballot collection law were unlawful by violating Section 2 of the VRA. The majority opinion was written by Judge William A. Fletcher, a concurring opinion was written by Judge Paul J. Watford, and separate dissents were written by Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Jay Bybee. [11] The en banc majority held that both the out-of-precinct policy and H.B. 2023 had a discriminatory impact on Native American, Hispanic, and African American voters. The court held that the policy violated the "results test" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they imposed a significant disparate burden on ethnic minority voters. [11] The court found that in the 2016 election, minority groups were more than twice as likely to vote out-of-precinct than white voters, and that white voters were four times more likely to have home mail delivery and pickup compared to minority groups, which made both provisions discriminatory. [15] Citing Thornburg v. Gingles , the court also held that the plaintiffs showed, under the "totality of circumstances," that the discriminatory burden created by the policies "was in part caused by or linked to 'social and historical conditions' that have or currently produce 'an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by [minority] and white voters to elect their preferred representatives' and to participate in the political process." [11]

The court also held that H.B. 2023 was enacted with discriminatory intent and therefore violated the "intent test" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and of the Fifteenth Amendment. [11] The court stated that H.B. 2023 was unnecessary, as Arizona had already made ballot tampering a felony via prior law. Instead, the court found that the intent of H.B. 2023 had been to fight the DNC's "get out the vote" campaign designed to increase voter turnout, which relied in part on the use of ballot collectors in minority-dense areas of the state. [15] In concluding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory intent, the court cited "Arizona's long history of race-based voting discrimination; the Arizona legislature's unsuccessful efforts to enact less restrictive versions of the same law when preclearance was a threat; the false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud used to convince Arizona legislators to pass H.B. 2023; the substantial increase in American Indian and Hispanic voting attributable to ballot collection that was targeted by H.B. 2023; and the degree of racially polarized voting in Arizona—cumulatively and unmistakably revealed that racial discrimination was a motivating factor in enacting H.B. 2023." [11] Having decided the case on the VRA and Fifteenth Amendment grounds, the court did not address the DNC's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. [11]

Supreme Court

Appeal

Both the state and the Republican National Committee (RNC) appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, specifically on the applicability of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. With the pending appeals, the Ninth Circuit put enforcement of its decision on hold for the 2020 elections and left the policy and the law in place. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in October 2020 since it agreed to hear the case, and it consolidated the two cases (Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee) for briefing and oral argument. [16] [17]

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were held on March 2, 2021. [4] Observers to the oral arguments said that a primary issue discussed by the justices was the standard that should be used to evaluate when discrimination occurs under Section 2 of the VRA. Those observers stated that there was a divide between the conservative justices, who appeared ready to support the state's policies, and the Court's three liberal members, who sought ways to maintain Section 2's relevance in the VRA. [18] [19] [20]

During oral arguments, Michael Carvin, an attorney representing the Arizona Republican Party, was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett what interest the party had in defending the Arizona voting restrictions. Carvin replied, "Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.... Every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us." [21] [22] [23]

Decision

The Court issued a 6–3 decision on July 1, 2021, that reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, with the majority ruling that neither the out-of-precinct policy nor H.B. 2023 [24] violated Section 2 of the VRA. Also, it did not find that H.B. 2023 had been passed with the intent of racial discrimination. The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Alito wrote that in his analysis of the two election policies under a statutory interpretation of the VRA, neither had a large effect on the openness of the election. In regards to the out-of-precinct policy, Alito stated, "Having to identify one's own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the 'usual burdens of voting'" set by the VRA. He also stated that data from the 2020 election showed, "A policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies — minority and non-minority alike — is unlikely to render a system unequally open.". [25] On H.B. 2023, Alito referred to the per curiam decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006): "A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process." [25] He stated that the respondents had failed to show that the law had a disparate impact: [25] "Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence." [25]

Alito's majority was seen to weaken the VRA further by limiting Section 2 through the introduction of means to review Section 2 challenges. [26] [27] The non-binding slip opinion stated in its syllabus, "The Court declines in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA [Section 2] challenges to rules that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots. It is sufficient for present purposes to identify certain guideposts that lead to the Court's decision in these cases." [28] Alito laid out guideposts used to evaluate the state regulations in context of Section 2, which included the size of the burden created by the rule, the degree that the rule deviates from past practices, the size of the racial imbalance, and the overall level of opportunity afforded voters in considering all election rules. [29] [27]

Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion.

Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a 41-page dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan wrote, "This Court has no right to remake Section 2 [of the VRA]. Maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history—and so the need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone. ... But Congress gets to make that call." [26] Kagan further wrote "What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about 'the end of discrimination in voting.'" [30]

Reactions

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel called the decision as a "resounding victory for election integrity", claiming "Democrats were attempting to make Arizona ballots less secure for political gain, and the Court saw right through their partisan lies." [29] Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was defending the state's election laws under review by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 2 of the VRA, supported the Court's decision and stated that the DOJ should "heed this decision and dismiss their wrong, politically motivated lawsuit against Georgia." [31]

US President Joe Biden said that he was "deeply disappointed" in the ruling. He said, "In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure. After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this Nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them." [31] Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP, called the ruling a "frontal attack on democracy" and stated that "the Court sent the clear message that vote suppressors around the country will go unchecked as they enact voting restrictions that disproportionately impact voters of color." [31]

Impact

Court observers identified that Brnovich may be a landmark Supreme Court case on voting rights, following the large amount of litigation filed prior to and after the 2020 election related to voting laws and policies and the lack of any congressional action to amend the VRA. At least 165 state bills related to election laws were introduced between the 2020 election and the end of February 2021, with 28 laws passed across 17 states when the Court's ruling was issued. [31] Analysts claimed that some of the bills appeared purposely to restrict voting rights further and limit minority voting if they passed. They emphasized the need to strengthen the voting rights for minorities set by the VRA through the Supreme Court. [2] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

The Court's decision came while Congress was debating over passing an amendment to the VRA to strengthen protections for voting rights further after the 2020 election. [31]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Of the current justices, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

Voter caging involves challenging the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of allowing them to vote. Usually it involves sending mail directly to registered voters and compiling a list from mail returned undelivered. Undeliverable mail is seen as proof that the person no longer resides at the address on their voter registration. The resultant list is then used by election officials to purge names from the voter registration rolls or to challenge voters' eligibility to vote on the grounds that the voters no longer reside at their registered addresses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States. The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full.

Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state's creation of additional influence and coalition districts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the district court to examine the facts using the new standard announced in its opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter identification laws in the United States</span>

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote in elections in the United States.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. After the American Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, but poll taxes or language tests were used to limit and suppress the ability to register or cast a ballot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 improved voting access significantly. Since the beginning of voter suppression efforts, proponents of these laws have cited concerns over electoral integrity as a justification for various restrictions and requirements, while opponents argue that these constitute bad faith given the lack of voter fraud evidence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> Amendments to U.S. legislation

The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Brnovich</span> 26th Attorney General of Arizona

Mark Brnovich is an American attorney and politician who was the 26th Attorney General of Arizona from 2015 to 2023. A member of the Republican Party, he was an unsuccessful candidate for its nomination in the 2022 U.S. Senate election in Arizona. He is married to Susan Brnovich, a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States, documenting when various groups in the country gained the right to vote or were disenfranchised.

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding Ohio's voter registration laws. At issue was whether federal law, 52 U.S.C. § 20507, permits Ohio's list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. If the mail is not returned, the voter is stricken from the rolls, a practice called voter caging. The Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that Ohio's law did not violate federal laws.

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 census.

Texas Senate Bill 5 is a bill that implements a form of voter identification law in the state of Texas. It is a revamped version of a previous Texas voter ID law that was introduced in 2011.

Ballot collecting, also known as "ballot harvesting" or "ballot chasing", is the gathering and submitting of completed absentee or mail-in voter ballots by third-party individuals, volunteers or workers, rather than submission by voters themselves directly to ballot collection sites. It occurs in some areas of the U.S. where voting by mail is common, but some other states have laws restricting it. Proponents of ballot collection promote it as enfranchising those who live in remote areas or lack ready access to transportation, are incapacitated or in hospital or jail. Critics of ballot collection claim high probability for vote misappropriation or fraud.

Presley v. Etowah County Commission, 502 U.S. 491 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court voting rights case where the Court held by a 6—3 majority that the abolition of road districts did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Lewis Voting Rights Act</span> Proposed voting rights bill in the 117th Congress

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023 is proposed voting rights legislation named after civil rights activist John Lewis. The bill would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, most notably its requirement for certain jurisdictions to seek federal approval before enacting certain changes to their voting laws. The bill was written in response to the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down the system that was used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to that requirement.

The Voting Rights Act of Virginia is a Virginia law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting and establishes a preclearance provision for proposed changes to election administration, among other provisions. It is modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and is the first voting rights act enacted in the American South.

Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.

References

  1. 1 2 Totenberg, Nina (February 27, 2013). "Supreme Court Weighs Future Of Voting Rights Act". National Public Radio . National Public Radio. Archived from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 Sullivan, Sean (June 25, 2013). "Everything you need to know about the Supreme Court Voting Rights Act decision". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  3. ↑ Yancey-Bragg, N'dea (July 31, 2020). "Voting Rights Act was John Lewis' life's work. 55 years later, minority voter suppression remains". USA Today . Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 Barnes, Robert (February 28, 2021). "Supreme Court to again consider federal protections for minority voters". The Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  5. ↑ Fuller, Jaime (July 7, 2014). "How has voting changed since Shelby County v. Holder?". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on December 10, 2020. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  6. ↑ Gomez, Amanda; Harven, Michelle (August 5, 2016). "What you need to know about changing voting laws this election". PBS News Hour . Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  7. ↑ "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  8. ↑ Fisher, Howard (March 9, 2016). "Ducey signs bill to make ballot harvesting a felony". Arizona Capitol Times . Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  9. ↑ Chung, Andrew (February 24, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 27, 2021. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  10. ↑ Horwitz, Sari (April 14, 2016). "Democratic Party, Clinton and Sanders campaigns to sue Arizona over voting rights". The Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Hobbs, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
  12. ↑ Chappell, Bill (November 5, 2016). "U.S. Supreme Court Allows Arizona To Enforce Ban On Ballot-Collecting". NPR . Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  13. 1 2 Oxford, Andrew (January 27, 2020). "Federal court says Arizona 'ballot harvesting' law discriminates against minority voters". The Arizona Republic . Archived from the original on March 1, 2021. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  14. ↑ Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan , 911 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2019).
  15. 1 2 Wines, Michael (January 28, 2020). "Voting Will Be Easier in a Key State for the Presidential Race". The New York Times . Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  16. ↑ Chung, Andrew (October 2, 2020). "Arizona voting curbs remain as U.S. Supreme Court takes Republican appeal". Reuters . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  17. ↑ Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, SCOTUSBlog.
  18. ↑ Liptak, Adam (March 2, 2021). "Supreme Court Seems Ready to Sustain Arizona Voting Limits". The New York Times. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  19. ↑ Kapur, Sahil (March 2, 2021). "Supreme Court questions need for restrictive voting laws in Voting Rights Act case". NBC News . Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  20. ↑ de Vogue, Ariane (March 2, 2021). "Supreme Court conservatives poised to uphold Arizona's curbs on voting". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on March 12, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  21. ↑ "In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win". NBC News. March 2, 2021.
  22. ↑ "Lawyer says eliminating voting restrictions would put Republicans at a 'competitive disadvantage'". www.washingtonpost.com.
  23. ↑ Weinberg, Abigail. "A GOP lawyer says the quiet part loud in SCOTUS voting rights case".
  24. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (July 21, 2021). "Voting Rights: How America lost its commitment to the right to vote". Vox.com. Archived from the original on June 27, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Higgens, Tucker (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court sides with GOP and upholds Arizona voting rules Democrats called discriminatory". CNBC . Archived from the original on August 23, 2021. Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  26. 1 2 Totenberg, Nina (July 1, 2021). "The Supreme Court Deals A New Blow To Voting Rights, Upholding Arizona Restrictions". NPR . Archived from the original on July 7, 2021. Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  27. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 7, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
  28. ↑ "Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), Slip opinion, Syllabus, page 2" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. July 1, 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 6, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
  29. 1 2 Dywer, Devin (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court upholds Arizona restrictions in major voting rights, racial discrimination case". ABC News . Archived from the original on July 7, 2021. Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  30. ↑ Krutzel, John (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court leaves Arizona voting restrictions in place". The Hill . Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  31. 1 2 3 4 5 de Vogue, Ariane; Schouten, Fredreka; Duster, Chandelis (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court says Arizona limits don't violate Voting Rights Act". CNN . Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  32. ↑ Carlisle, Madeline; Mansoor, Sanya (March 1, 2021). "The Supreme Court Will Hear A Case That Could Weaken What's Left of the Voting Rights Act". Time . Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  33. ↑ Newkirk II, Vann (March 1, 2021). "American Democracy Is Only 55 Years Old—And Hanging by a Thread". The Atlantic . Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  34. ↑ Morales-Doyle, Sean (February 25, 2021). "The Supreme Court Case Challenging Voting Restrictions in Arizona, Explained". Brennan Center for Justice . Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  35. ↑ Berman, Ari (March 1, 2021). "Voting Rights: Republicans Are Trying to Kill What's Left of the Voting Rights Act". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved March 6, 2021.
  36. ↑ Biskupic, Joan (March 3, 2021). "John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on March 5, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.