–
Janie Gosselin Press
Two measures, dating from 2016, form the starting point of the cause. One is that a ballot is invalid if it is deposited in the wrong office. The other prevents the collection of mail ballots by a third person, unless it is a family member.
Opponents of these measures believe that they particularly discriminate against minorities. Its advocates see it as a way to prevent fraud.
The scope of the decision could be much broader, opening the door to a new interpretation of a law that applies to all states.
“The question is whether these two provisions, as implemented in Arizona, violate the Voting Right Act , the national law that ensures that laws, whether smart or stupid, do not discriminate on the basis of race, ”said Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
Fight for civil rights
The Voting Right Act , adopted in 1965, is seen as a great success in the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Its section 2, now studied by the judges of the Supreme Court, obliges the states – which enjoy great latitude to regulate the vote on their territory – not to adopt measures which are discriminatory or which would have the effect of discriminating against an ethnic group. in the exercise of the vote.
It was under this section of federal law that the two Arizona laws were challenged and struck down in the Court of Appeal. The Arizona Republican Party took the issue to the Supreme Court.
What is being debated right now is what falls on complainants to demonstrate that there is an unequal burden on minority voters. [pour exercer leur droit de vote], and whether the mere fact of being able to prove it is sufficient to invalidate a law.
–
Joshua Sellers, Associate Professor of Law at Arizona State University
–
Democrats and voting rights organizations believe these laws in Arizona are particularly damaging to access to the vote, particularly in Latin American and First Nations communities.
The Navajo Nation, for example, lives in a rural area of approximately 70,000 km2 . Postal service is not provided throughout the community. Hence the issue of delivering a postal ballot to a third party.
PHOTO MARK HUMPHREY, ARCHIVES ASSOCIATED PRESS
John Roberts, President of the Supreme Court of the United States
–
The composition of the Supreme Court, where six out of nine Conservative judges now sit, worries progressives. Its chairman, John Roberts, has taken a stand in the past in declaring affirmative action measures unconstitutional.
Significant setback
In 2013, the Voting Right Act has suffered a major setback. The Supreme Court struck down the section requiring states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal government authorization before making changes to their election laws.
The decision taken eight years ago left a big dent in the Voting Right Act , that made the section currently considered even more important. It’s like a toolbox: you remove one and that makes the others more important.
–
Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles
–
A bill, the For the People Act , was passed in the House of Representatives last week. It provides for various measures to try to break down the obstacles to voting. “This project faces significant hurdles in the Senate, and I don’t know if that will pass, because Senate politics is complicated,” says Sellers. But it is a very long law, with many clauses that would greatly improve our elections. ”
Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, believes Democrats risk refocusing the issue of voting access by making it easier for everyone to avoid legal debates over discrimination.
“The reality in this country is that many if not most of the restrictive voting measures put in place have a racial result if not racial intent,” said Mr. Magarian. For some time now, the United States Supreme Court has been increasingly hostile to attempts to address racial discrimination through specific racial-oriented measures. From a metrics standpoint, it makes sense, but the Supreme Court is constitutionally focused, and if you’re trying to help black people, that’s discrimination against white people. This is what the case law shows. ”
The decision is expected to be rendered at the end of June.
–
