Supreme Court upholds Arizona's electoral law amid complaint that it hinders minority voting

By Pete Williams - NBC News

The Supreme Court endorsed two electoral laws in the state of Arizona on Thursday, which was decisive in the 2020 presidential elections, in the face of complaints that they assured that the changes introduced by the Republican Party hindered the right to vote of minorities.  

This opinion, adopted with the vote in favor of the six conservative magistrates (three of them, appointed by former President Donald Trump) and against the three progressives), is important because it defines the possibilities of ongoing lawsuits throughout the country against similar changes approved by Republicans after Trump's loss to Joe Biden last November.

It also represents a test for what remains of one of the country's main civil rights laws, the 1965 Voting Rights Law, which the Supreme Court cut back in 2013. A provision that allows lawsuits against electoral changes is still standing. jeopardize minority rights to elect their preferred candidate.

Today's ruling indicates that Arizona did not violate this Voting Rights Act by passing a legislative measure in 2016 that allowed the ballot to be collected and delivered only to voters, their families or their caregivers.

Additionally, the Court upheld a long-standing state policy requiring officers to dispose of votes cast by mistake in the wrong precinct.

Regarding the first measure, the state's lawyers defended that it was trying to prohibit "the unlimited collection of votes by third parties", applying common sense, they added, to protect that the vote remains secret.

Regarding the second, they indicated that they were trying to prevent fraudulent attempts to vote in several precincts at the same time.

The Democratic Party in Arizona (where Republicans rule, although Biden won that state in the 2020 presidential elections) nevertheless denounced that the state had a habit of changing polling places more often in neighborhoods where minorities live to induce errors than annul your vows.

They further added that minority voters tend to need help more often to turn in their ballots.

In many states where collecting these ballots and delivering them on behalf of the voter is legal, community activists offer their help to encourage participation in elections.

An Arizona federal judge had rejected the lawsuit against the laws, but the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, so Arizona raised the issue before the Supreme Court, which has now agreed.