The first law required election officials to discard votes cast in the wrong precinct, even if the voter was registered and eligible to vote in the state. The second law prohibited anyone other than family members or caregivers from collecting and submitting mail-in ballots on behalf of voters, a practice known as ballot harvesting. The DNC claimed that these laws disproportionately affected minority voters, who were more likely to move frequently and rely on ballot collection.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld both laws, with a 6-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito. In the opinion, the Court rejected the argument that the laws violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language minority status. The Court held that the laws were neutral and nondiscriminatory, and that any burden on minority voters was outweighed by the state's interest in preventing voter fraud and maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
The ruling was met with both praise and criticism from political leaders and advocacy groups. Supporters of the decision argued that it upheld the principle of states' rights and preserved the integrity of the election process. Critics, however, claimed that the ruling weakened protections for minority voters and made it easier for states to pass discriminatory voting laws.
The decision is significant because it reinforces the Court's conservative shift in recent years, particularly on issues of voting rights. In 2013, the Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws. Since then, several states have passed voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minority voters, such as voter ID laws, purges of voter rolls, and reductions in early voting and polling locations.
The Brnovich ruling could embolden other states to pass similar laws, knowing that they are less likely to be struck down by the courts. It also raises questions about the future of voting rights in America, particularly in light of ongoing efforts by some politicians to restrict access to the ballot box.
Despite the Court's decision, advocates for voting rights remain committed to protecting and expanding access to the vote for all Americans. They argue that the Brnovich ruling underscores the need for federal legislation, such as the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would set national standards for voting and strengthen protections against discriminatory voting practices.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a significant development in the ongoing debate over voting rights in America. While the ruling upheld two Arizona voting laws, it also highlighted the ongoing struggle to protect the right to vote for all Americans, particularly those from marginalized communities. As the country continues to grapple with issues of voter access and discrimination, it is important to remain vigilant and committed to protecting the fundamental right to participate in our democracy.