Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Term with Two 6-3 Splits Along Familiar Lines

The Court's final opinions did not offer many surprises.

|

The Supreme Court issued its final two decisions in argued cases for the October 2020 term. Both decisions produced 6-3 splits along ideological lines, as most observers expected.

First up was Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee concerning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Alito wrote for the Court's conservatives, concluding that Arizona's laws prohibiting ballot harvesting and limiting out-of-precinct voting did not violate the VRA and that these provisions were not enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The implication of this decision is that Section 2 claims against state voting laws must be based upon disparate treatment claims, and the evidence of disparate impact on minority groups is insufficient. Justice Gorsuch wrote a brief concurrence joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented on behalf of the Court's liberals.

The final opinion of the term came in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, concluding that California's donor disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors' First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. This case also produced a 6-3 split along ideological lines, but the majority splintered on some issues. Here's the full breakdown:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II– B–1. KAVANAUGH and BARRETT, JJ., joined that opinion in full, ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined except as to Part II–B–1, and THOMAS, J., joined except as to Parts II–B–1 and III–B. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the  judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

This means that Section II-B-1 of the opinion, which held that "all compelled disclosure requirements are reviewed under exacting scrutiny" did not command a majority. Justice Thomas would have gone farther and applied strict scrutiny. Justice Alito (joined by Gorsuch) did not feel the need to apply a categorical rule to all donor disclosure requirements in this case.

Overall, this term produced more 6-3 splits than 5-4 splits, but a surprising number of alignments. There were six different 6-3 alignments and five different 5-4 alignments, and of those cases in which replacing Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett made the difference, the marginal votes came from Justice Thomas more often than from the Chief. (That is, the five justice majority with Justice Ginsburg would have included the Court's four liberals and Thomas.)

Stay tuned for additional discussion of these decisions and the Supreme Court's term in subsequent posts.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: July 1, 1985

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Realistically, the donor disclosure requirement in California was intended to provide a target list for retaliation, it served no other useful purpose. I think basically everybody understood that the goal was a combination of retaliation and intimidation.

    “Justice Alito wrote for the Court’s conservatives, concluding that Arizona’s laws prohibiting ballot harvesting and limiting out-of-precinct voting did not violate the VRA and that these provisions were not enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The implication of this decision is that Section 2 claims against state voting laws must be based upon disparate treatment claims, and the evidence of disparate impact on minority groups is insufficient.

    If he had ruled that such claims had to be based on disparate impact, whether there was evidence of discriminatory purpose would have been irrelevant. THIS claim had to be based on disparate impact, because in THIS case, evidence of discriminatory purpose was absent.

    In fact, the absence of evidence of discriminatory purpose was part of the majority’s holding.

    1. Artie. SC stopped the cheaters.

      1. Conservatives applauding these decisions resemble Mets fans celebrating the deal that precipitated Bobby Bonilla Day.

        Which is today.

        Fred Wilpon. Another guy I’m glad to see wearing a right-wing jersey.

        1. Whats a “right wing jersey”?

          1. The uniform worn my members of the clingerverse.

    2. a target list for retaliation

      I thought the only proper cure for speech was more speech? Or is that only for poor people and nor for rich donors?

      1. I don’t understand how you think this is a gotcha. The only proper cure for speech is more speech. The point is that this law was meant to deter speech, not provide for more speech.

      2. “I thought the only proper cure for speech was more speech?”

        It is!

        So create your own charity and produce your own speech. Don’t try to destroy the lives of those whose speech you don’t like

        1. Didn’t you hear? Speech by non-leftists is violence. And leftist violence to shut down speakers is speech.

      3. It’s not the rich donors who are at risk — everyone knows who George Soros and Bill Gates are, and neither has an employer who can be targeted. Likewise, I doubt that an unruly mob could get anywhere near the residence of either man without being arrested.

        It’s Joe Sixpack’s speech that this law sought to censor — his $50 contribution…

        1. “It’s not the rich donors who are at risk”

          Tell Brendan Eich that. I tend to class him as rich, but it didn’t protect him. Maybe you mean, “It’s not the super-rich donors who are at risk.”?

          True that, billionaires are fairly safe donating to any charity they want.

      4. the list would be leaked one way or another, find itself in the hands of the press, or found through some law suit for an supposedly unrelated reason.

        all that we need for proof is how many times IRS documents that are supposedly secure are released without source, even some politicians divorce proceedings have been released without permission or anyone getting caught

        1. Let’s be real: The list was literally being compiled for the purpose of being leaked. Or at the least creating the fear that it would be.

    3. The discriminatory purpose requirement shouldn’t exist, disparate impact should be enough. Legislators will simply take no notes, and do everything in person or via phone call.

      Thomas Hofeller is a great example of this. As he isn’t a legislator, he was never a target of lawsuits, so he could email freely without concern of redistricting challenges (as long as it wasn’t to lawmakers). So he did. And we didn’t know any of it until his daughter released his emails posthumously.

      Until that guy died and his daughter released his emails showing that minorities were targeted.

      1. “discriminatory purpose requirement shouldn’t exist, disparate impact should be enough”

        You have that backwards. We should ban intentional acts only.

        1. If you only ban intentional acts, no act will be intentional. No one will take notes. No one will send emails. No one will send letters. All actions will leave no paper trail behind, making it impossible to ever prove.

          What’s your solution to that?

      2. Disparate impact is inevitable where groups are not similarly situated. Banning disparate impact without a discriminatory purpose test amounts to mandating quotas, because implementing a quota is the only reliable way to avoid disparate impact in the real world.

        You should require either proof of discriminatory intent, or facially discriminating laws, and really, only the last is actually a constitutional problem.

        1. Disparate impact is inevitable where groups are not similarly situated. Banning disparate impact without a discriminatory purpose test amounts to mandating quotas, because implementing a quota is the only reliable way to avoid disparate impact in the real world.

          Correctly done, that’s not true.

          1. No, it’s absolutely true: For instance, blacks on average have lower incomes than whites. The simple fact that the grocery store sells cabbages at the same price to all people who walk in the door has “disparate impact”.

            Sure, nobody goes after grocery stores for charging the same price to everybody for the same product, but that’s only because the situation is simple enough they can’t do so without looking absurd. They’ll absolutely cry “Disparate impact!” in situations which are equivalent.

            Literally, you had claims of “disparate impact” because 1% of blacks and 0.5% of whites were trying to vote in the wrong precinct. And nobody cares what color you are when you walk into the wrong precinct to vote! They just care what your address is.

        2. That is, effectively, legalizing discrimination. Similar to my response above, legislators will just cease taking notes or leaving a paper trail of any kind.

          What’s the solution for that?

          1. You know that everything is effectively legal when there’s no evidence of illegality, right? Why do you want the government to target people when there’s zero evidence?

            No cause could ever be righteous enough to justify that.

            1. They aren’t targeting people for criminal trial for enacting voting laws, that isn’t a thing. They are, in fact, attempting to do the opposite and protect people (their right to vote).

              As we have seen throughout the history of this country, state legislatures will attempt to make voting difficult for those they don’t like (literacy test, poll tax)

              As an example of now a now likely legal (but not yet put into law) discrimination: Texas was, prior to democratic walk out, going to pass a law that restricted early voting on Sundays. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/01/texas-voting-bill-sunday-republicans/

              This law was intended to restrict minority voting, but you would never find a record of this, as legislatures don’t write down or record anything that could be construed as discriminatory.

              Are such laws okay? If a law states that people cannot drive other people to the polls, is that okay?

              1. What hours of what days must voting be allowed? You seem to think some rules are evil. Please state exactly what is evil and what isn’t and how you decided which is which.

                Because otherwise it’s just complaining no matter what.

                1. You seem to not be capable of giving someone the benefit of the doubt in a constructive discussion.

                  It isn’t that a rule is evil. It is that the rule will have a disparate impact on minorities. Black voters (based on their opposition to the proposed law) would be affected more than other voters. Such a change needs to be justified. What justification is there from the state? They don’t pay for voting, that’s done at the county / city level.

                  In your view is any rule restricting voting okay if it isn’t discriminatory on it’s face? If a state wanted to bring back a written multiple choice literacy test, such that all answers could be objectively graded, is that okay? Is a poll tax okay now, even though it would impact the poor the most? What about a rule limiting hours to vote only in the city?

                  1. So what?

                    Here’s teh rules. Everyone has to follow them. You don’t value your vote enough to follow them?

                    Then don’t vote.

                    Your skin color doesn’t make your vote more valuable than mine.

                    What we should be doing is having one Election Day, strictly limited absentee balloting for those who can’t possibly make it to the polls on election day. You have a precinct, you show up there, show your State issued photo ID issued by the State you’re voting in, and then you vote.

                    If you can’t master that, you don’t vote, and we’re all better off for it

                    Stop being such a racist pig, assuming that “minorities”are too stupid / incompetent to be able to vote like the rest of us

                    1. That’s basically what the Court said here: The ease of voting that predominated in 1982 is the floor under which a state won’t be permitted to fall, anything above that is within a state’s discretion barring evidence of significant racial disparities or proof of discriminatory intent.

                      That floor is, register in advance, show up to vote on election day, in person, unless you have proof positive it’s humanly impossible for you to make it to your voting place. Early voting? Discretionary. Making absentee ballots available without cause? Discretionary. Drop boxes? Discretionary. Same day registration? Discretionary.

                      States are not constitutionally obligated to make voting as easy as possible, and a half percent difference in racial statistics doesn’t mean diddly.

                  2. It’s something I learned by watching people give the left “the benefit of the doubt” and then, almost every single time, those people subsequently learned that double-standards were being used and the left was merely being dishonest the entire time. If I observe that behavior changing, then perhaps it will someday not be self-destructively stupid to extend that courtesy.

                    What makes black votes more important than all other votes such that all rules must always be skewed to maximize black votes?

                    If a facially neutral rule change causes some other race of voters’ votes to decline (on a percentage basis) more than black votes, is the rule acceptable? Which race? And how did you decide to legally rank the races?

                  3. Telling responses from both Ben_ and Greg. Neither really cares to engage with providing a justification.

                    To be fair, that doesn’t mean there are no justifications, they’re just so partisan they feel owning the libs is enough.

                    1. How do you legally rank the races Sarcastr0?

                      Some of us rank them all the same, but we’ve seen from your posts that you do not.

              2. We cant vote on Sunday in Iowa. Is that racist? But shortening Sunday voting is racist?

                1. I’m pretty sure there’s a secret, critically important distinction that’s beyond the understanding of ordinary, unenlightened, non-true believers.

                2. Again, this isn’t about creating new laws.

                  If Iowa voted to allow voting on Sundays, and suddenly the black vote dramatically increased, and then they voted to remove it, that isn’t okay.

                  1. Specific minority vote numbers are sacred.

                    1. Weird you seem to think this is a zero sum game.

                      Actually not weird at all – you think fewer blacks voting is good for your side, and that’s all you care about.

                    2. Why do you think black folks are unable to vote without special rules to help them?

                      I think black folks are just as capable as everyone else of voting. No special rules needed.

                  2. You know that there isn’t actually a “no retrogression” rule in the constitution? No one-way ratchet? States are actually allowed to try things out, decide they’re not worth it, and go back to prior practice, if prior practice was itself permissible.

      3. No, it should not be. If you use disparate impact, any gauge that measures intelligence will be prohibited, as blacks are inherently less intelligent.

        If all groups were equal, disparate impact would make sense. But mestizos and Africans are borderline retarded relative to whites and East Asians, so the comparison isn’t fair.

        1. Are you for real with this?

          1. Read the Bell Curve and educate yourself. Blacks fail everywhere they exist in the world because of their 70-85 average IQ. They cannot complete in a society where the average is 100.

          2. Eh, it’s not so much that blacks are all less intelligent than whites, but there are very broad distributions of intelligence in both groups, and the peaks aren’t in exactly the same place. We can argue all day about why that is, but it’s replicated across a wide variety of measures, so it’s irrational to claim it isn’t real.

            Doesn’t tell you squat about any given person you meet, but disparate impact isn’t about particular people, it’s about statistical averages. So it DOES show up there.

            Now, Aktenberg78 is kind of edge-lordy about how he talks about it, but that doesn’t make him totally wrong.

    4. Just like the Democrats had no reason for wanting Trump’s tax return other than to harass him.

      If you start from the premise that leftists are evil people with destructive motives, everything else they do makes a lot more sense.

  2. basically, Alito killed the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia.

    1. “The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when §2 was amended in 1982 is a relevant consideration.”

      Yeah. Since there was no “early voting” other than absentee ballots in 1982, no ballot drop boxes, and IIRC usually only “for cause” absentee ballots, the Democrats are going to have a difficult time whining about GA

      1. But whine they shall.

        1. Both of you think that the point of the lawsuit is to win. It’s not. It’s to gin up support for the 2022 elections, the need for Breyer to retire, eliminate the filibuster, and pack the court. From their point of view they probably want to martyr themselves as spectacularly as possible.

          1. Oh, I think they’d be glad to have won, and mandated that 2020 election practice, (Not law!) changes be forced on the states by the courts. It’s just that they figure they get something either way.

            1. Yeah probably right, they win either way.

    2. basically, Alito killed the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia.

      No. The DOJ lawsuit against Georgia alleges intent.

      1. “The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when §2 was amended in 1982 is a relevant consideration.”

        According to the decision, only 3 States has “no fault” absentee voting.

        None of them had in person early voting, or absentee ballot drop boxes, or vote harvesting.

        So, which of the GA voting changes are more restrictive than 1982?

        And “partisan intent” doesn’t count, it requires “racially discriminatory intent”. Good luck trying to prove that one

        1. 1) I didn’t say the lawsuit against Georgia would succeed; I said that this decision doesn’t “kill” the lawsuit, because the lawsuit addresses a different issue.
          2) The 1982 baseline is a relevant consideration, not the only one.
          3) It’s not always easy to show intentional racial discrimination. But when people say things like, “We can’t let Atlanta and Detroit and Philadelphia pick our president,” it’s sometimes not too hard.

          1. “We can’t let Atlanta and Detroit and Philadelphia pick our president,”

            They’re talking about the fact that Democrat elections officials in those cities created enough fraudulent ballots to steal the election.

            Something we know because no honest vote counter blocks poll watchers from being able to observe the work being done, but Democrat elections officials in those cities did do so

            1. Democrat elections

              You just can’t help yourself looking illiterate, can you?

              They’re talking about the fact that Democrat elections officials in those cities created enough fraudulent ballots to steal the election.

              They’re talking about the fact that black people live in those places. (Trump did relatively better in Detroit in 2020 than he did in 2016.)

              Something we know because no honest vote counter blocks poll watchers from being able to observe the work being done, but Democrat elections officials in those cities did do so

              Nope.

              1. Look, calling it the Democrat party isn’t ignorance, any more than calling the Republican party the “Rethuglican” party, which I’ve seen more than one left-winger do.

                An insult isn’t a spelling mistake.

                Oh, and yes, there were a fair number of cases of election observers being ejected or prevented from observing counting. In some cases even where they had court orders clarifying that they had the right to.

                And, finally: Detroit election administration is a dumpster fire, and has been for decades, and no sane person disputes that. What can you do? Every time you propose to put the city into receivership, they threaten to riot.

                1. there were a fair number of cases of election observers being ejected or prevented from observing counting.

                  This turned out to be bullshit, when you checked through the affidavits. It was all subjective stuff like ‘I wasn’t close enough’ or ‘there were Latinos counting the vote, and they have a natural conflict of interest.’

            2. Got any evidence? Of anything? No? Not even a little bit? Great.

    3. Yes, while I thought that US v. Georgia was DOA (and why wasn’t there SCOTUS primary jurisdiction for it?), this decision pretty much nuked it.

      It will, however, be interesting to see if the lower courts observe this decision — or not…

  3. … did not violate the VRA and that these provisions were not enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

    Of course. No doubt they read the provisions and decided based on that. Like they are supposed to, right?

    The fact is that there are no actions that Republicans take on voting laws which are not with discriminatory purpose. It being otherwise is just not possible given the state of the GOP today and the century preceding. That is the whole reason we had consent decrees on some states but not others, and why when those decrees were lifted those Republican-controlled legislatures acted within hours with giddy abandon.

    You know, I know, everyone knows that the result of the Arizona action will be that some percentage of legitimate voters for Democrats will be shaved off. Will it be enough to keep Republicans in power? Will it actually even work or will it suppress even more Republican voters? Who knows — but we all know that the intent of the law was. It wasn’t to prevent “election fraud” because there isn’t any.

    I don’t expect the conservative majority to reliably connect with reality anytime soon. Sometimes they do. But can the rest of us stop pretending we don’t know what they are doing?

    1. “The fact is that there are no actions that Republicans take on voting laws which are not with discriminatory purpose.”

      Why yes: we’re discriminating between honest votes and fraudulent ones, and blocking the fraudulent ones.

      Like any decent human being would do.

      What’s wrong is “racial discrimination”, not mere “discrimination”. And there was no real evidence of racial discrimination.

      “It being otherwise is just not possible given the state of the GOP today and the century preceding.”

      Um, it’s the Democrat Party that has a century+ history of racial discrimination in voting, not the Republicans.

      Perhaps you should try learning some history before pretending to comment on it?

      1. Why yes: we’re discriminating between honest votes and fraudulent ones, and blocking the fraudulent ones.

        Please provide a list of the fraudulent or illegitimate votes of the 2020 election in Arizona that were not rejected by the election officials. Then explain why these new laws were needed.

        Perhaps you are waiting for the Cyber Ninja’s to produce your miracle for you.

        1. The point of the law was to keep fraudulent votes from being cast.

          For example, by “vote harvesters” going to people’s homes, “helping them fill out their ballots”, and then taking those ballots in (assuming they were voted “correctly”).

          You didn’t bother to read the case, did you? you just take every Democrat talking point, and regurgitate it, no matter how stupid it is

          1. Are you uh….not aware of all of the voter fraud committed by republicans? Like the entire race in NC that has to be redone because they fraudulently cast hundreds of ballots?

            1. Ah, you mean the case where a Democrat campaign manager went to work for a “Republican” candidate who used his time tested (and perfectly acceptable, when he was doing it for Democrats) absentee ballot fraud measures to first help the guy steal the Republican Primary, and then steal the General election?

              The case where when they re-ran things without him, a different Republican won the Primary, and the General election?

              Yeah, I’m familiar with that case.

              I’m also familiar with the Democrats long history of fighting all measures that could make an election more secure.

              Are you?

          2. For example, by “vote harvesters” going to people’s homes, “helping them fill out their ballots”, and then taking those ballots in (assuming they were voted “correctly”).

            I haven’t read the case yet, but “vote harvesting” is not “helping” people fill out their ballots. If I’m sick and don’t want to leave my house, why can’t my neighbor drop off my ballot for me? Or my cousin, or my best friend? If I put it in the envelope, seal it, and sign it, shouldn’t that be good enough? What’s the risk of that?

            1. Simple. Pay ballot harvesters $5 per ballot harvested. 1000ballots delivered to the “Head Harvester” for $5,000. The Head Harvester, destroys them all and replaces them with pre filled out ballots. The Country Recorder destroys all the signature envelopes like they did in Georgia.

              1. The Country Recorder destroys all the signature envelopes like they did in Georgia.

                I mean, this is completely fictional, but you do you.

            2. 1) Your cousin, being a relative, can do it under this law. As can a household member or caregiver.

              2) There’s nothing wrong with someone dropping off your ballot, obviously. The problem is that if there are no limits on people doing that, it enables fraud. Go read up on what happened in NC-9 in 2018 to see how ballot harvesting can lead to such a result in a real world situation. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing that from happening.

      2. Perhaps you should try learning some English before pretending to comment on it? There is no “Democrat Party,” at least not in the United States.

        1. This is a great and very insightful comment that adds soooooo much to the discussion. Kudos!

          1. David is always White Knighting for the libs here.

        2. Hence, David, there are no Democrats….

        3. There is not “Democratic” party in the US, because as a purveyor of “Living Consitutionalism” (the belief that 5 left wing members of the SC have the right to rewrite the US Constitution at will, so as to throw out any laws they don’t like), as well as pushers of vote fraud, the one thing they can’t claim to be is pro democracy.

          They are a group of people who call themselves “Democrats”. They are not democratic. They are, and always will be, the “Democrat Party”

          1. Jeez, you’re in deep. Can’t really hold a civil conversation with anyone who doesn’t think half the country is traitors.

    2. Who knows — but we all know that the intent of the law was. It wasn’t to prevent “election fraud” because there isn’t any.

      Sure there is. We saw a congressional election invalidated in North Carolina in 2018 because of ballot harvesting fraud.

      As for what you magically think we “all know,” the Biden DOJ agreed that the Arizona laws were valid.

      1. Yes, there’s quite a bit of republican election fraud…..

        1. There’s not a lot of election fraud of any sort. But that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t have rules designed to make it harder to commit election fraud. I live in a low-crime suburb, but that doesn’t mean I leave my door unlocked when I go to the grocery store.

    3. “Of course. No doubt they read the provisions and decided based on that. Like they are supposed to, right?”

      No, they are NOT supposed to do that. Neither is the Appeals Court.

      That is the job of the District Court. To quote the decision:

      And it overturned the District Court’s finding that the Arizona Legislature did not adopt the ballot-collection restriction for a discriminatory purpose. We now hold that the en banc court misunderstood and misapplied §2 and that it exceeded its authority in rejecting the District Court’s factual finding on the issue of legislative intent.

      This might help you, too:
      We also granted certiorari to review whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that HB 2023 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The District Court found that it was not, 329 F. Supp. 3d, at 882, and appellate review of that conclusion is for clear error, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 287–288 (1982). If the district court’s view of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, an appellate court may not reverse even if it is convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently in the first instance. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573–574 (1985). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id., at 574.
      The District Court’s finding on the question of discriminatory intent had ample support in the record.

      A suggestion: If you don’t want to look like (and be) an utter ass, pay no attention to anything written by left wing commentators until you’ve first read the Opinion they’re whining about

  4. Key holdings from Brnovich:

    The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when §2 was amended in 1982 is a relevant consideration.

    The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. And small disparities should not be artificially magnified

    The strength of the state interests—such as the strong and entirely legitimate state interest in preventing election fraud

    The dissent also would adopt a least- restrictive means requirement that would force a State to prove that the interest served by its voting rule could not be accomplished in any other less burdensome way. Such a requirement has no footing in the text of §2 or the Court’s precedent construing it and would have the potential to invalidate just about any voting rule a State adopts.

    But §2 does not require a State to show that its chosen policy is absolutely necessary or that a less restrictive means would not adequately serve the State’s objectives.

    Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice to avoid §2 liability. … Further, a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders.

    1. Apparently, Adler read the above considerations from the decision and concluded, “The implication of this decision is that Section 2 claims against state voting laws must be based upon disparate treatment claims.” That is according to Adler, the Court wrote out of Section 2 any practical disparate impact claim. And while I suspect Alito would not agree (for otherwise he has not faithfully applied the text of Section 2), Adler may well be right.

      1. If the GOP makes a voting change that blocks 50% of black voters from voting, and only 25% of white voters, then that would be “disparate impact” that would get the law tossed.

        But when the numbers are “less than 1% of black voters” and “less than 0.5% of white voters”, and when the failure is entirely the fault of the voter (going to the wrong precinct, not listening when you’re told you’re in the wrong precinct, and insisting on “voting” anyway), “disparate impact”, and SCOTUS rightfully treated it that way

        1. But when the numbers are “less than 1% of black voters” and “less than 0.5% of white voters”, and when the failure is entirely the fault of the voter (going to the wrong precinct, not listening when you’re told you’re in the wrong precinct, and insisting on “voting” anyway), “disparate impact”, and SCOTUS rightfully treated it that way

          Engaging in actual fraud (falsified ballots, ineligible voters, rigging the count, etc.) risks going to jail, so there is really very little incentive to engage in fraud on the scale of 0.5% of the vote total on the small chance that the legitimate vote margin would be within that range. However, if the party in power in a legislature can manipulate election rules to get a +0.5% advantage in turnout, there is no down side to that at all, so why not?

          Besides that obvious problem with your argument there, voting rights belong to individuals. Even one person wrongfully denied their right to vote is a problem. Start from the position that voting should be easy and convenient and only then start restricting it for security reasons that are fully justified with facts in evidence and not hand-waving, and then you’re getting somewhere.

          1. “Engaging in actual fraud (falsified ballots, ineligible voters, rigging the count, etc.) risks going to jail, ”

            Lying to the FISA Court so you can spy on people “risks going to jail” too. It hasn’t kept Democrats from doing it, and for some reason, even when caught, none of them go to jail for it.

            “voting rights belong to individuals. Even one person wrongfully denied their right to vote is a problem”

            Yep. And I have a right to have my vote count. Which it doesn’t if the Democrats are allowed to let in a fraudulent vote that cancels out mine.

            You do not have a right to have the government hold your hand and take the challenge out of voting. If you’re too stupid, lazy, incompetent, or just uninterested to go through the basic tasks necessary to vote (like filling out a voter registration form, or looking at the address of your polling place that the State sent you with your sample ballot), that’s your problem, not ours.

            And if you’re the Party of the stupid, lazy, incompetent, and just uninterested, you don’t deserve to win.

            I make the effort to vote. It is right and proper that the State should make sure that my vote won’t be stolen by someone else’s fraudulent vote. Because there’s no voting rights when the election is decided by fraud

            1. Yep. And I have a right to have my vote count. Which it doesn’t if the Democrats are allowed to let in a fraudulent vote that cancels out mine.

              Any procedure or effort to limit fraud must be needed to prevent fraud and be proportionate to the actual risk of fraud. Anything that makes voting less convenient or more complicated must be necessary. Just satisfying your fears of having your vote “canceled” by the other side’s fraud isn’t sufficient.

              And that you put it that way gives away the game, of course. You aren’t looking to make sure that elections are secure for the sake of principles of the republican form of government. You worry about the other side cheating and winning because of it. What if your side cheats? Do you care about that? Would you still vote for Republicans if there was incontrovertible proof that the party was systematically trying to manipulate the rules to gain and maintain power, but there was no proof of any such “shenanigans” on the part of the Democrats, even after credible investigations? Or would you continue to justify siding with the GOP because the Dems just must be getting away with it somehow?

              Everyone has a right to free, fair, and open elections. Elections don’t just require security from fraud, but they require truly equal access to the ballot. You want to have procedures put in place to prevent what you fear in terms of fraud. All voters get to be certain that they aren’t being discouraged from voting or having their vote tossed out because of rules put in place by people that don’t like who they would vote for.

              You do not have a right to have the government hold your hand and take the challenge out of voting.

              Voting is a game, where you only get to vote after completing some bureaucratic obstacle course, is that it? Talking about the “challenge” of voting like that is ludicrous. Besides, you put it all on the voter as if election officials never make mistakes themselves. If I show up to the wrong polling place to vote, it must be my fault. It couldn’t possibly be that some data entry clerk typed something in wrong or some other error on the part of the election office.

              I’m not even arguing about the rules in this specific case so much as your assertion that a small “disparate impact” isn’t enough to worry about. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and “grandfather clauses” and the like from the Jim Crow era were blatantly racist without the rules themselves ever mentioning race. The standard you and the SCOTUS majority would apply is that the rules need to either be explicitly race-based or have such a large impact (50% reduction in the Black vote compared to a 25% reduction in the white vote, in your example) that it isn’t plausible to deny racist intent, in order for them to be struck down.

              But this is just giving permission to those in power to manipulate the rules at the margins, shaving a % or two here and there from the turnout of voters they don’t want voting. Just don’t say the quiet part out loud, and they’re all good.

          2. Even one person wrongfully denied their right to vote is a problem.

            Sure, but this isn’t literacy tests. This isn’t poll taxes. Neither of the policies at issue in this lawsuit told anyone that he or she couldn’t vote.

            Every single otherwise-eligible voter (e.g., 18 y.o., citizen, not felon) could equally cast a vote with these two provisions in place. You have to show up in the right place, but that applies to everyone.

            1. Sure, but this isn’t literacy tests. This isn’t poll taxes. Neither of the policies at issue in this lawsuit told anyone that he or she couldn’t vote.

              I keep linking to this attempt at explaining Sunday voting limits by a Texas GOP state representative. No one is answering it, because it is just such a ludicrous attempt to lie about why they wanted a 1 p.m. restriction on Sunday early voting.

              “It was a typo! They just typed “1” when they were supposed to type “11”. What? It says “1 p.m.” so just leaving a single “1” out would have made it 11 p.m.? Well, we really meant 11 a.m. and someone in the office typed 1 p.m. instead. What? One of my state senate GOP colleagues had said during debate that 1 p.m. was needed to allow poll workers to go to church first? No, no, no. That doesn’t make sense, or else nothing would be able to be open on Sunday mornings because they couldn’t find workers willing to go to church at other times or workers that just don’t go to church. It was a typo, I tell you!”

              Even literacy tests and poll taxes didn’t say that they were targeting Blacks. This SCOTUS ruling is a road map for those in power to manipulate voter turnout and get away with it. Just don’t say the quiet part out loud and make sure that the impacts aren’t so large that only our side could believe that you weren’t targeting voters based on race, and you’re all good. Shave a few percentage points from the groups that vote against us here and there to your heart’s content.

              1. This SCOTUS ruling is a road map for those in power to manipulate voter turnout and get away with it

                It is not. Whether or not literacy tests and poll taxes said they were targeting blacks, they actually prevented people from voting; there were people who could not pass those tests. (In the case of literacy tests, that was by design; they were not an issue of disparate impact at all, but disparate treatment. It wasn’t like setting a threshold score on the SAT; it was a subjective challenge for which the tester decided who passed.) But there’s nobody who can’t show up at the right polling place, or who can only submit a ballot via a stranger coming to their house and taking it from them. (Anyone who is so disabled that he or she can’t even mail a letter by definition must have a caregiver, and in any case Arizona law requires that the government itself provide accommodations for such people.)

                The fundamental fallacy underlying your argument is the notion that if someone likes to uses method X to vote, and method X is removed as an option, that the person is thus prevented from voting, even though there are plenty of other methods available. It may require that person to alter his behavior, but so what? (If my mortgage is due on the 1st, but there’s a 15-day grace period, I may routinely submit my payment on the 15th. If the bank changes its policy to only allow a 10-day grace period, that does not mean I will now submit my payment 5 days late every month; it means I will start paying on the 10th.)

                Because no groups are 100% equally situated, any rule could have a disparate impact. The only way not to have such impacts is not to have any rules. But that’s not what the VRA requires, for obvious reasons.

                1. I think the issue is about a risk-based formulation (making it harder to vote creates a risk a given individual won’t vote; over a population that risk will be realized some times) versus an absolute formulation (something more akin to the undue burden standard).

                  But did you read Kagan’s dissent? I’m an easy mark when it comes to voting rights, but it seemed a pretty strong argument that between the ignoring of intent and the tailored rewriting of the law, this was damn near nullification.

                  1. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but Joe Biden’s DOJ agreed that these provisions were not problematic under § 2. So either Biden is a lot more conservative than I thought, or it was not really very close to nullification.

                    1. Again, I haven’t yet read the ruling in this case, nor do I really know a lot of the details of the situation. My concern is the reasoning behind the decision and how it would apply more broadly. And I was responding directly to what Greg J had said, where he appeared to argue that a small disparate impact isn’t a problem.

                      I am particularly concerned in light of the case I linked above. The Texas law that set a 1 pm limit to Sunday early voting doesn’t block anyone from voting, but it is just not believable to me that it wasn’t aimed at “Souls to the Polls” efforts that some Black communities and churches were known to do. If the SCOTUS will allow legislators to engage in the kind of marginal “risk-based formulation”, as Sarcastr0 put it, to whittle away at the turnout of voters that would support their opponents, then there becomes every incentive for them to do just that.

  5. This ruling is probably correct with how NAACP v Alabama was ruled. Not really possible to rule differently. Even the dissent seems to acknowledge that the rule from NAACP v Alabama is now just being applied equally to all types of speech, the difference being that a real threat is no longer required as a precondition of anonymity. Which seems inherently correct, that speech should generally be created equally.

    I’m conflicted with this ruling and my opinion that all political donations should be made public. I think the difference is that political donations are not solely personal. Instead, voters benefit from knowing who supports which politicians, and who those politicians have agreed to receive support from. That is not the case with California’s charity rule, as there isn’t a defined public benefit.

    1. Large donations to politicians are done to buy influence. Report them

      Large donations to a charity are done to advance political speech that you support. It’s none of your business who made the donation

        1. The origins of these laws isn’t IRS or fraud or something an AG needs to look into. It was to expose large donors so The People could see who was influencing politicians and wonder about tit for tat.

          Never liked tax issue riders. Stinks too much of shutting people up for having the noive to speak on a subject.

          And that’s all before recent developments of using info to harrass people. If your side would get rid of secret ballots, you really need a hard look in the mirror. That hasn’t worked out so well, historically, for your side.

          Or any side.

          1. “We don’t want that!”

            Yes you do. Hillary had the position secret unionization votes should be ended, so union thugs, sorry, communicators, could lean hard on those who voted the wrong way, sorry, have a pleasant chat with them.

            Shame if something got broken, but stuff happens.

            1. Yelling about what you think unions would hypothetically do is not a valid argument.

              I’m all for the secret ballot, but you’re so poisoned with partisanship you can’t argue without writing fiction about Democrats.

    2. “Instead, voters benefit from knowing who supports which politicians, and who those politicians have agreed to receive support from.”

      Wouldn’t this rationale support eliminating the secret ballot?

      1. The point of the secret ballot is to eliminate vote buying

        Which is why absentee ballots should be “for cause only”, and tightly regulated.

        With a secret ballot, you can accept payment to vote one way, then vote the other, and no one can prove you “cheated” the vote buyer.

        With absentee ballots and / or open voting, the vote buyers can verify that you voted their way before paying you.

        it’s why most States make it illegal to take a picture of your ballot in the voting booth. They’re not protecting you, they’re protecting the voting process from vote selling

        So no, we should not go back to an open ballot

        1. Aren’t caucus primary votes [for example, in Iowa] done in the open?

          -dk

      2. So far as I know the secret ballot was enacted by legislation, courts never found the open system unconstitutional, but of course all this happened long before current understandings of the First Amendment’s scope.

        So in theory a state could if it wanted to choose to eliminate the secretballot and go back to open voting. There’s no direct precedent on point. But this case, more so than NAACP v. Alabama before it, would tend to cast doubt on the constitutional validity of doing so.

        1. In some contexts I think open voting is still used, like New England Town Meetings.

          1. Not always — some small towns have gone to secret written ballots — literally scraps of paper — and then the moderator counts/sorts them in plain view.

            It helps keep the peace in really small towns (under 100 voters).

            In larger ones, people raise hands or a red/green card.

    3. The difference is that the NAACP had to prove that its members would be subject to harms, like being fired from jobs and other hams, in order to qualify for anonymity. Anonymity was not considered a general right, but only something that applied if a plaintiff made a threshold showing of threat of harm.

      This case eliminated the requirement to show evidence of threat of harm and made anonymity a general right.

      1. The existence of cancel culture is proof that teh plaintiffs will suffer harm

        If you have any questions about the matter, ask Brendan Eich

        1. Crying about the libs is not going to make that threshold.

          Your personal endless wellspring of outrage is not legally, no matter how sincerely it makes you think things are true, does not count as proof in a court of law.

      2. It’s not that hard to prove a real threat today. You just about have to hide in a cave to not notice it.

        1. They notice it. There’s an unspoken agreement that they will dishonestly deny it.

          1. Much like they’ll lie and mock anyone with “No one is trying to take your guns” while they’re simultaneously trying to do just that.

            The entire Democrat Party spends most of their days gaslighting America, with the help of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the academy, and the media.

            All of them need to be gassed.

        2. Brett, you’re not a court of law. It’s not hard to prove a real threat *to you* but you are pretty special in that way.

          1. Look, a long list of relevant organizations joint this lawsuit, because they believed there was a threat. Not all of them were right-wing, either, and I’m only a member of one of them.

            It’s pathetically easy to prove the existence of such a threat, in California. Too many people have suffered actual, provable retaliation for donations to Prop 8.

            1. ‘Lots of companies joined the suit’ is not evidence a suit should carry the day.

              You know this.

              I know you feel it’d be super easy to prove threat, but somehow no one has on an individualized basis. Doesn’t that give you pause?

              1. It’s not lots of “companies,” though. It’s lots of liberal advocacy groups. (Well, they didn’t actually join the suit. But they submitted amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiffs.)

  6. Enjoy it while you can, clingers.

    Your betters will check in with you — with an enlarged Supreme Court, a diminished (or eliminated) filibuster, an enlarged House (and Electoral College, diminishing the undeserved amplification of backwater votes), two or three new states, enlarged federal district and circuit courts, a new voting rights act, universal health care, and plenty of other elements of additional American progress — down the road apiece.

    The culture war is not over but it has been settled. I declare victory. Any conservatives want to claim they are still competitive?

    1. There, there, Rev. Here’s your binky, why don’t you go take a nap.

      I’m sure everything will be better when you wake

      1. Everything gets better every day for me.

        America becomes less rural, less White, less religious, less Republican, less bigoted, and less backward each and every day, as old conservatives take their stale, ugly thinking to the grave and are replaced in our electorate by better, younger Americans.

        Every day. Fewer racist Republicans. Fewer misogynistic right-wingers. Fewer right-wing misogynists. Fewer superstitious gay-bashers.

        Every day is a better day in America. I thank Republicans for doing their part. By being replaced.

        1. Without the ability to extract money (both taxes and incidental sales) from the upper-middle class workers who won’t be commuting into cities anymore, most of these cities (e.g. Boston, NYC) are going to be in serious trouble.

          Many of the commuters to both Boston & NYC don’t even live in the respective *states* and hence can’t be taxed by the state either — if corporations can headquarter in Delaware or North Dakota, they can rent an office in New Hampshire…

        2. Unfortunately for you, whites pay all of the bills and fight all of the wars. See if you can run your better America with 80 IQ blacks and mestizos.

        3. And then which tribe becomes the new scapegoat? Funny how BDS is so upsetting to certain liberals who have bashed “white” Americans for decades…your right that the war is over…for one group but it is just beginning for the “winner” tribes…given how incompetent their leaders are in anything but statism and using govt to enrich themselves this is going to be very fun to watch…all while China takes the reserve currency and then buddy…its all over…the road will be cleared of the cultural marxists once and for all

    2. Artie seems not to understand much, including that the court is going to be solid 6-3 on conservative issues, and 7-2 in a few years after Biden / Harris lose the next election. No court packing is possible, and conservatives are growing now that former democrats realize they’ve been had. Some great decisions coming fulfilling the dream of a great center right & conservative nation.

  7. I resd Brnovich as holding that a disparate impact claim is viable, but the wording of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires a higher standard for such a claim than for other disparate impact claims such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    The disparate impact has to be substantial. The court noted that the prohibition on casting votes in the wrong precinct affected about 1% of minority voters and about 0.5% of other voters, and said that these differences are simply too small to support disparate impact. It also said that whether a voting practice is generally done, either currently or in 1982, is relevant. Only abnormal voting rules are applicable. It imposed other limitations.

    But proof of discriminatory intent, disparate treatment, is not required. A novel rule imposing a sufficiently disparate burden would be struck down under the standard.

    1. The court noted that the prohibition on casting votes in the wrong precinct affected about 1% of minority voters and about 0.5% of other voters,

      I agree with the court’s decision, but those numbers aren’t quite right. That’s the percentage who cast an out-of-precinct ballot, but a larger percentage can be affected. Let’s say a voter shows up to cast a ballot, and then gets to the front of the line and is told, “You’re not registered here. You must be in the wrong place. You can’t vote.” And then the voter gives up and goes home. He has been affected by the rule without casting an out-of-precinct ballot.

      But it’s still tiny, still entirely the fault of the voter, and there’s no evidence of meaningful disparate impact.

      1. “But it’s still tiny, still entirely the fault of the voter, ”

        Is that assertion based on experience? My experience — decades of election day operations — controverts those claims.

        Plenty of polling places are arranged and operated in a confusing manner.

        1. My experience over decades of voting — which is backed up by the Court’s description of Arizona law — is that each voter is mailed a sample ballot before the election that tells him or her where his polling place is. So I don’t see in what kind of confusing manner one could operate the polling place to cause someone to show up at the wrong one.

        2. Anything’s confusing if you’re confused enough, Rev. I’ve got my voter registration in my wallet, it helpfully identifies my voting location, not that I’d forget where it is after having voted once.

          The bottom line is, if you can’t be bothered to identify where you’re supposed to go to vote, a trivially easy task in every state, you’re probably stupid enough you shouldn’t be voting, or maybe should bring a coin along to improve the average result of your doing so.

      2. Why do you agree with the ruling? The conditions that determine whether a violation has occurred struck me as either 1) a Breyer-like mish-mash that is impossible for lower courts to uniformly apply or 2) effectively saying “Section 2 claims against state voting laws must be based upon disparate treatment claims” (quoting Adler).

        1. It is a mash-mash, but the statute expressly calls for a “totality of the circumstances” test; that isn’t something that the court made up.

          1. Why do you think Alito’s particular mish-mash is correct?

      3. Let’s say a voter shows up to cast a ballot, and then gets to the front of the line and is told, “You’re not registered here. You must be in the wrong place. You can’t vote.” And then the voter gives up and goes home.

        Then that person is a loser who shouldn’t be voting, and we’ve dodged a bullet.

        The one who cares about his / her vote will figure out which precinct is correct (perhaps look at some of the documents sent from the State that say where to vote), then go to the correct polling place and get to vote in all the races.

        People deciding that their vote isn’t worth a minor effort on their part is not vote suppression

        1. Whether you think this is bad from a normative point of view does not change the fact that it happens from a descriptive point of view.

          Also, if they get to the polling place too late, they may not be able to get to the correct one on time, no matter how much effort they are willing to put out.

      4. Actually, the most important way “those numbers aren’t right” is that it’s only for election day voters.

        Which meant that in 2016 (IIRC) it was 0.15% of total votes that were invalidated that way

    2. Section 2 and 8 were non sensical in a free society. You can’t say buyers can discriminate but sellers can’t in certain conditions that only govt decides..that was crazy. And govt has no constitutional authority to tell folks who they do business with in any way no matter the “results”…it isn’t the govts business who you do business with. Drop those two sections and the Act becomes pro liberty..or at least just say sellers have to sell as long as the buyer can pay no matter what. That removes the whole “cake baker” religious freedom issues which just ties the court up in nonsense.

  8. Reading AFP:
    The Court concludes that exacting scrutiny requires that a govern- ment-mandated disclosure regime be narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest, even if it is not the least restrictive means of achieving that end.

    Shelton stands for the proposition that a substantial relation to an important interest is not enough to save a disclosure regime that is insufficiently tailored. Where exacting scrutiny applies, the challenged requirement must be narrowly tailored to the interest it promotes. Pp. 6–7, 9–11.
    (b) California’s blanket demand that all charities disclose Schedule Bs to the Attorney General is facially unconstitutional.
    (1) The Ninth Circuit did not impose a narrow tailoring requirement to the relationship between the Attorney General’s demand for Schedule Bs and the identified governmental interest. That was error under the Court’s precedents. And properly applied, the narrow tailoring requirement is not satisfied by California’s disclosure regime. In fact, a dramatic mismatch exists between the interest the Attorney General seeks to promote and the disclosure regime that he has implemented.

    In reality, California’s interest is less in investigating fraud and more in ease of administration. But “the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency.”

    The Attorney General’s disclosure requirement is plainly over- broad under that standard. The regulation lacks any tailoring to the State’s investigative goals, and the State’s interest in administrative convenience is weak. As a result, every demand that might deter as- sociation “creates an unnecessary risk of chilling” in violation of the First Amendment

  9. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of voting rules among different states. I wonder if some of the objections are more propaganda that real.

    1. Well, sure. I think it was only last year that NY got any kind of early voting at all, and absentee voting there is still for cause. The disconnect between what Democrats were ignoring in NY, where they’re firmly in control, and calling “voter suppression” in states where Republicans were in power, was absurd.

      Of course their complaints of vote suppression were just propaganda.

      1. I’m also loving the drama regarding the Democrat Party primary for NYC mayor. There are so many irregularities, irregularities Republicans were mocked for noticing in November.

    2. From the Opinion:
      It is also significant that precinct-based voting has a long pedigree in the United States. See 948 F. 3d, at 1062–1063 (Bybee, J., dissenting) (citing J. Harris, Election Administration in the United States 206–207 (1934)). And the policy of not counting out-of-precinct ballots is widespread. See 948 F. 3d, at 1072–1088 (collecting and categorizing state laws).

      So there’s your law comparison source

  10. About time we start getting benefits from Trump’s picks.

  11. Brnovich maj opinion footnote 16:

    “Who knew?”

    Love it!

    1. I think the last couple sentences make it even beter:

      Perhaps that is why no one—not the parties, not the United States, not the 36 other amici, not the courts below, and certainly not this Court in subsequent decisions—has advanced the dissent’s surprising reading of a single phrase in Houston Lawyers Assn. The dissent apparently thinks that in 1991 we silently abrogated the principle that the nature of a State’s interest is but one of many factors to consider, see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 44–45 (1986), and that our subsequent cases have erred by failing simply to ask whether a less burdensome measure would suffice. Who knew?

  12. “But the version enacted into law includes §2(b), and that subsection directs us to consider “the totality of circumstances,” not, as the dissent would have it, the totality of just one circumstance.”

    Snicker

  13. Re: Brnovich – Adler’s “reading” of the Opinion of the Court is finding in it the opposite of what it actually says – an implication contrary to the actual text of the opinion. As odd as I find it that an originalist/textualist would resort to using legislative history to make a point, he did so to prove that the dissent wanted to ignore the text as enacted and enforce the original House version. The ACTUAL law does not require disparate treatment or evidence of discriminatory intent – and Alito never implies otherwise. Neither does it establish mere de minimis disparate impact as sufficient to invalidate a facially neutral “time, place, and manner” voting regulation, but disparate impact is a factor that must be included in a “totality of the circumstances” analysis that evaluates whether a racial or linguistic minority has an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

    Voters in Arizona have it easy – unrestricted mail-in voting, 27 days of early voting with at least one early voting location in each county, and the ability to drop off a mail-in ballot at any polling place on Election Day with guaranteed time off to do so gives us all ample opportunity to have our votes counted. The fact that those of us who for whatever reason choose to vote in person at the last possible opportunity have to abide by the same restriction as the vast majority of Election Day voters across the nation (at the designated polling place for your registered address) cannot be considered burdensome of the right to vote on the basis of race or language.

    When, after reading Justice Alito’s opinion, I discussed the merits of the decision with my politically aware (and quite progressive) roommate, his only issue was with the ban on third party collection, and the example he gave for why it should be allowed was one that will probably apply to me in the future – disabled individuals in assisted living facilities – where a nurse could be prosecuted for collecting the residents’ mail-in ballots and taking them to the mailbox. I called BS, because caregivers are allowed to handle mail-in ballots under the law as written.

    If the primary example of why a law should be invalidated is fear of disparate impact on a class the Voting Rights Act does not protect that would be caused by the threat of prosecution of someone for conduct the law allows on its face, I suspect the furor over the Arizona law is a due to ignorance and propaganda. Just like Mr. Adler’s eisegesis of Justice Alito’s opinion.

  14. Just so you know, the Arizona voting law ruling, despite the fact that the Biden administration agreed with it (per the Washington Post) shows that SCOTUS is the enemy of democracy (per the Washington Post). Guess that makes Biden an enemy of democracy as well, but we already knew that.

  15. I don’t expect the Dems expected to win Brnovitch, but I should think Marc Elias is licking his lips at Alito’s rousing exhortations to (almost) absolute deference to the fact finding of the District Court.

    Pick your first instance Judge with care and you’re almost home.

    Kagan will certainly be sharpening her quill, if Alito doesn’t like the fact finding of the next District Court in an election case.

  16. Funny how in NY School Budget/Board elections there wasn’t any absentee ballots allowed or mailing out ballots to all eligible voters..and in fact I had to show my driver’s license to vote. I asked why and was told the teacher’s unions and admin were afraid of losing because most people forget the vote anyway..it isn’t publized very well on purpose so only those who benefit (teachers, contractors, administrators, unions) control the vote and always win. So voter suppression is alive and well in NY…by the democratic/boshevik/public union party…total bullshit

  17. A point here a lot of people are missing is that the Court explicitly tied the baseline for voting practices to 1982 because that was when the relevant federal law was amended.

    A statutory decision, which could potentially be overturned by a statute.

    This is NOT a decision Congress can’t override with legislation. Republicans had better hope they do well in the midterms, or this ruling will be short-lived.

Please to post comments