US Supreme Court in Brnovich v DNC will determine the legality and constitutionality of Arizona’s ban on ballot harvesting and set the tone for what can be expected in the 2022 election.
According to SCOTUSblog:
“Issues: (1) Whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (2) whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.”
In his article for the Epoch Times, Supreme Court Likely to Issue Major Ruling on Ballot Harvesting Soon, Jack Phillips wrote:
The court’s justices are set to hand down their last opinions of their current session on Thursday, perhaps including on a voting rights case that calls into question Arizona’s law that bans ballot harvesting—or the practice of collecting ballots for delivery. Also under consideration is the state’s law that mandates the dismissal of ballots that were cast in the wrong voting district.
After the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against the laws, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Democrats and overturned them. Later, Arizona state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
The GOP-controlled Arizona Legislature passed a ballot harvesting bill in 2016 that made the practice—typically carried out by Democratic-aligned groups—of going door-to-door asking people to take their ballots to a local polling place unlawful. The law makes exceptions for family members, caregivers, and people living in the same household. Republicans have said this would eliminate fraud and other irregularities.
In a divided ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’s majority argued that the law was a bid to suppress minority voters.
KEY POINT: An announcement is expected on Thursday, according to the Epoch Times, that could be a landmark case for the 2020 General election.
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) June 29, 2021
Bottom line here is their case:
Under Title VII, disparate impact relates to a denial of an employment opportunity, a job, or a promotion. It doesn’t get involved in the process. No one’s ever brought a Title VII claim saying you can’t require people to send in applications because minorities have less access to transportation and mail, analogous to the claim being made here.
So Respondents are trying to move disparate impact into an entirely different context. Since there’s no denial of any voting opportunity in this context, the circumstances in which time, place, and manner rules can violate Section 2 are extraordinarily limited.
They only occur if the state has organized the time, place, and manner rules and stacked them in such a way that minorities have less opportunity than non-minorities to cast their votes.
Going down a Rabbit Hole: Full Text of Oral Arguments In Front of US Supreme Court
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
Kari is an ex-Community Organizer who writes about Voter Engagement, Cultural Marxism and Campaigns. She has been a grassroots volunteer with the GOP, on and off for 18 years. She is a Homeschool Mom in North Carolina and loves Photojournalism and Citizen Journalism. @Saorsa1776