Voting Rights in the Spotlight, Part One: The Desert Debate

The Flag Staff Contributor
Voting Rights in the Spotlight, Part One: The Desert Debate
Read Time: approx. 4:34

Voting Rights are back in the spotlight after the contentious 2020 Presidential election. Here’s what both sides are saying. To have stories like this and more delivered directly to your inbox, be sure to sign up for our newsletter.

Top Story: Voting Rights


Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, report: “US Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared inclined to uphold two Republican-backed voting restrictions in Arizona in a case that could further hobble the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.  During nearly two hours of oral arguments by teleconference the court’s conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, asked questions indicating they could issue a ruling that would make it harder to prove violations of the Voting Right Act.

First Some Background


…One of Arizona’s measures made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. The practice, which critics call ‘ballot harvesting,’ is legal in most states, with varying limitations.

The other provision disqualified ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned. Voting rights advocates said voters sometimes inadvertently cast ballots at the wrong precinct, with the assigned polling place sometimes not the one closest to a voter’s home.”

According to the Department of Justice, “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.”

A decision in the cases, Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, and another named Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is expected before July. These cases are not directly related HR1, or “The For the People Act,” which is also in the headlines this week. We will be covering HR1 in tomorrow’s edition. For now, here’s what both sides are saying about the cases in front of the Supreme Court:

On The Right


Republicans believe these laws are fully constitutional and necessary to ensure fair and transparent elections. They see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide a clarifying interpretation of existing law that avoids further obstruction to legislative safeguards.

The Wall Street Journal editors believe that the laws are constitutional since “Both rules are intended to bolster ballot integrity.” The editors write that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was meant to “stop states from disenfranchising blacks with underhanded methods like poll taxes and literacy tests,” but “Democrats now argue that any state regulation that makes it a little harder for anyone to vote violates the law—even if it applies equally to minorities and whites.” They further contend that “The Voting Rights Act (VRA) puts the burden on plaintiffs to show that minorities, based on the ‘totality of circumstances,’ have ‘less opportunity’ than others to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” The Arizona case has bounced around while ascending the legal ladder to The Supreme Court, and WSJ editors blame the courts that have “defined this so broadly that it has invited political mischief and judicial activism on an ad hoc basis.” Due to divisive “political contention over voting access and election laws,” the editors want to see the Court “set proper parameters around Section 2 to distinguish between real and invented legal violations.”

In Fox News, Jason Snead pulls no punches and argues that “Perhaps no case better illustrates the political left’s current animosity to even the most commonsense election protection measures, or its willingness to use unsupported race-based allegations to attack them in court and in public.” He continues, observing that “Arizona has a voting system that any reasonable observer would think makes it extraordinarily easy to vote. The state offers online voter registration and allows anyone to vote by early ballot for any reason. For the 27 days before Election Day, Arizona voters can vote in-person at any early voting center or return an early ballot by postage-free mail or hand delivery. And Arizonans take advantage of these opportunities – in 2016, long before the pandemic, about 80% of ballots cast were early ballots.” He concludes that “Arizona has, if anything, a voting system that might err on the side of too little protection.” With respect to ballot harvesting, specifically, he points out that in a different state, “The North Carolina Board of Elections unanimously invalidated a congressional election in 2018 over evidence of fraud perpetrated through ballot trafficking.” Snead ends by accusing progressive activists and politicians of “pursuing every avenue to weaken voting laws even though, by wide margins, voters in both parties embrace strong safeguards like voter ID laws and vote trafficking bans.”

Dan McLaughlin takes on a specific argument from the left in National Review. Because the left knows they have a very weak case, he claims, they are in a “panicked scramble to get the case thrown out on procedural grounds before the Court can decide that there is no voting-rights violation going on here.” He goes on to defend the second part of Arizona’s legislation, which “requires people to vote where they are registered.” McLaughlin sees this demand as an “entirely commonplace and race-neutral requirement.” He concludes that the GOP has “standing on grounds that it benefits from enforcing an entirely fair and valid law against counting illegal ballots. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you something.”

Conservatives expect a Supreme Court ruling that will bless their attempts to revise and instill voter confidence in a now-flawed electoral process.

On The Left


What the right sees as a chance to bolster election integrity, the left broadly dismisses as an attempt to suppress the vote in Democratic strongholds. Democrats see Arizona’s legislation as emblematic of the racist legacy of voter suppression in this country.

The LA Times Editorial Board argues that “The Court must not water down the law’s protections for voters of color.” Instead, they contend, “Courts must look not only at whether there is equal opportunity to vote on paper, but also at whether some practices have the real-world effect of disenfranchising minorities.” They cite a 2013 Supreme Court case that weakened previously established protections and argue that “Congress must enact measures to rectify the harm caused…and to protect against new state efforts to suppress turnout.” However, they believe that the Court, in addition to Congress, “Must make clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will protect minority voters from subtle as well as overt discrimination.”

Jessica Levinson makes a similar argument for a dual Congressional and Supreme Court-based approach in MSNBC. She writes that “As much as it is important for the Supreme Court to define the reach of what remains of the Voting Rights Act, it is crucial for Congress to take this opportunity to pass a new Voting Rights Act that truly protects the right to vote.” She points out that the 2013 Supreme Court Ruling ruling eliminated a carve-out known as Section 5. The carve-out had placed the burden of proof on specific jurisdictions, rather than plaintiffs, to sue for damages related to election fairness. Because the Court is now more conservative, Levinson argues, it is “not likely to make the remaining column more robust. Instead, it is up to Congress to act and President Joe Biden to sign a more robust voting rights act — not in six months, but now.”

Charles M. Blow writes in The New York Times that “When it comes to voter suppression, ignoble intentions are always draped in noble language. Those who seek to impede others from voting, in some cases to strip them of the right, often say that they are doing so to ensure the sanctity, integrity or purity of the vote.” He contends that rather than voter integrity, Republicans are motivated by antagonism toward “the voting power of the racial minority, the young — in their eyes, naïve and liberally indoctrinated — and the dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.” He calls the Arizona bills “an electoral fleecing in plain sight, one targeting people of color. We are watching another of history’s racist robberies. It’s grand larceny and, as usual, what is being stolen is power.”

The left sees Republican voter integrity legislation as nothing more than an attempt to suppress the franchise of voters most likely to cast their vote for a Democrat.

Flag This


poll from the R Street Institute, a free markets group, finds that 67 percent of Republicans view the past election results as invalid, compared to 23 percent who believe the opposite. Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 36% of voters unaffiliated with either major political party believes that Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. While 70% of GOP voters and 46% of non-affiliated voters say mail-in voting led to unprecedented fraud in the 2020 election, only 11% of Democrats agree. If these party splits sound familiar, it’s because they are. In 2016, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that one-third of Hillary Clinton supporters believed Donald Trump’s presidential victory was not legitimate, and outlets like The Guardian called the 2016 election “fatally corrupted.”

Flag Feed


Flag Poll


What do you think? Is this a chance to win back voter confidence by clarifying existing legislation? Or is it an attempt to disenfranchise voters and make it harder for minorities to cast their ballot? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
1 month ago

Mail in voting MUST be stopped for all but those physically unable to cast a vote in person (Service men and women and disabled). Lazy is NOT a disability.

Voter ID MUST be required to cast any vote. If you need ID to travel, drive, get food stamps LEGALLY then the most important action of any citizen must also be protected by the LEGAL validation of a photo ID.

kanto
1 month ago

How can either of these issues have anything to do with race? Sometimes I wonder if people are really smart enough to even be commenting on something. I can truly say I hate absentee voting for anyone other than those who have a valid reason. I’m also against any computerized voting and do not even start on rank choiced voting! I find these the most craziest thing ever!

Andrew Terrell
1 month ago

In a democracy voting should be made easier and voters actively encouraged to vote. Voter suppression is the weapon deployed by elites seeking to maintain their privileges. If voting security is the issue, then the country should move to 100% mail-in/drop-off voting which will allow for the maximum scrutiny to ensure the very few fraudulent votes don’t slip through the cracks. The US voting system is already one of the most secure, so voters should ignore the hysteria being generated by racist and conspiracy theorists.

Sherry
1 month ago

Why is this issue not a collaboration between both parties instead of one sided politics. And then we all wonder what is the true intention of both parties. Work together to ensure non-exclusion of citizen’s right to vote and ensure elections are safe and secure. Outcomes should benefit citizens of this great country and NOT one political party over the other. Seriously so over the dysfunctional behavior of elected officials representing us.

Biggie Blue
1 month ago

The right to vote is actually a privilege, that one must not take lightly. Removing safeguards, such as Voter ID in order to ensure one is legally registered to vote, but is also the registered person, thus promoting Voter Integrity. Now if one must present a valid ID to get food stamps, buy liquor, buy cigarettes, cash a check, Identify and prove yourself to law enforcement, get a loan, buy a vehicle, get insurance, and the list goes on and on, which is Identity Verification Integrity. Now because the integrity of our election processes require the utmost integrity voters need to take their responsibility seriously, therefore it is not discrimination as it applies to everyone equally, and ensures the integrity of our electoral systems.

It is time to stop the attacks, by the Progressive (Ultra Liberal) left, on our Constitution!

Timothy Michael Powell
1 month ago

I am a spirited Independent voter, work as an Election Judge, and in thirty-three years of doing so, I have yet to see any fraud of any sort. Vote by Mail used to be a tool for people with access issues to vote, with the COVID-19 Pandemic, more voters utilized this tool to vote remotely and safely, minimizing any danger to anyone with compromised immunity, or in reality, anyone else to use. Lazy or not, it is a legitimate voting tool long established and utilized, last year it was more robustly utilized is all. The problem seems to be in the eyes of the beholder, as many that complained of “dangerous and illegal ballot harvesting” wer of the opinion that it hurt their party or candidate, or aided the other candidate or party.

Seems to me to be much ado about nothing at all. Another issue brought up by some poll watchers was that the signature of the voter did not match that in the book, in out case an electronic poll book. Hell, few if any people sign their name the same as the signature in the poll book, many times the signature was recorded when they signed up to vote at the tender age of eighteen, now as early as seventeen in some instances. having been an election judge in the same precinct for a long, long time, permits me to actually know most of the voters in person voting, knowing many of them since they started to vote, and I can always vouch who hey are and where they reside legally – they are my neighbors!

Any unnecessary laws and rules that restrict voting in any way, under the guise of election integrity, are just that – a restriction to voting rights. It would be far better if Election Day was moved to Saturday or Sunday, or a legalized state holiday – either of which makes it easier for in person voting. I have always been and will always be of the mind that anything that can make voting easier for the masses will be plus – our elections ought to have a much higher percentage of actual people voting, whether vote by mail, early voting, or in person voting on election day. Voting is a right and maybe it should be made to be a requirement for citizens, much like seat belts and taxation, to participate?