WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court says two provisions in Arizona’s voting laws do not violate Voting Rights Act regulations that are meant to eliminate racial discrimination.
The 6-3 ruling July 1 will make it more difficult for groups to challenge state laws they claim are discriminatory under the current Voting Rights Act. The court upheld the right of states to implement laws that regulate out-of-precinct voting and prohibit ballot harvesting.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey praised the ruling. He had joined a brief supporting the victorious side.
Morrisey
“The Supreme Court appropriately recognized that the Constitution affords states the right to make reasonable voting regulations,” Morrisey said in a news release. “We must work to protect the integrity of elections.
“It should only be in rare instances that federal law strikes down a state voting regulation, and the Supreme Court was correct in finding that Arizona’s law was not one of those instances.”
The court ruled that in-person ballots cast at the wrong precinct on Election Day must be completely discarded. It also ruled that only caregivers, mail carriers and election officials can deliver another person's completed ballot to a polling place.
"Neither Arizona's out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.0
"Arizona's out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on Election Day must do so in their assigned precincts,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, adding that travel to your proper precinct to vote does not exceed the "usual burdens of voting.'"
Also Thursday, the Supreme Court invalidated a California rule requiring charitable organizations to disclose a list of contributors to the state attorney general. Like the other ruling, the vote was 6-3 along conservative/liberal lines.
"The upshot is that California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases involving filed complaints," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that opinion.
Morrisey also hailed that ruling after also filing a brief for the prevailing side.
“States have an interest in preventing fraud, however, the Supreme Court appropriately found that California’s approach was not necessary to protect individual donors,” Morrisey said. “The Supreme Court was correct in recognizing that the Constitution sets a very high bar before government should be permitted to burden an individual’s free speech.”