Another Win for Voting Rights and Election Security

Hoosier Republicans,

The United States Supreme Court delivered another win for voting rights and election security. In Brnovich v. DNC, by a 6-3 margin, the Court shot down another Democrat attempt to open the door to ballot harvesting and to eliminate the long-standing requirement that voters vote in the precincts in which they are registered. I’ve included a Wall Street Journal editorial below that recaps what was at stake in this decision and why the Supreme Court was right to decide in the manner it did. I encourage you to read it when you have the chance.

This is the latest win for election integrity and security in just the last couple weeks. As general counsel of the Republican National Committee, I’m proud to be part of the RNC leadership team that that is working in all 50 states to protect our elections. Last week, our efforts led to the death (for now) of HR 1/S 1 in the United States Senate. That legislation was nothing short of a federal hijacking of state elections that would have allowed partisan ballot harvesting, threatened election security by weakening common-sense voter ID laws, paved the way for DC statehood, mandated taxpayer funded political campaigns, stuffed voter rolls with unverified registrations, and would have expanded flawed and insecure vote-by-mail systems where ballots are mailed to voters regardless of it the ballot was requested or not.

Our work is far from over. It is clear the Democrat Party will continue to try and use their razor-thin majorities in Congress to completely take over state elections. We’ll continue to fight to preserve and protect the integrity and security of our elections and I’ll keep you informed on this issue as events warrant.

Thanks

Kyle

The Supreme Court Bolsters Voting Rights

The Wall Street Journal
Editorial
July 1, 2021

The Supreme Court issued its ruling of the year on Thursday in upholding two Arizona voting rules. In a single blow, the Justices shot down efforts to politicize the Voting Rights Act and saved federal courts from becoming super election commissions.

Democrats in Brnovich v. DNC challenged Arizona’s ban on ballot harvesting and a requirement that voters cast ballots on Election Day in the precinct of the county where they’re registered. They claim the rules have a disparate adverse impact on minority groups and violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A district judge found no evidence the rules were discriminatory in intent or effect. But liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the lower court.

Progressives have been bombarding courts with challenges to state voting laws under Section 2 since the High Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that the Justice Department or federal courts sign off on election-law changes in states with histories of discrimination. The Biden Administration’s lawsuit against Georgia’s new voting law is based on Section 2.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito chronicles the history of Section 2, which Congress amended in 1982 by eliminating an earlier requirement that plaintiffs prove discriminatory intent. Congress, however, directed courts to consider whether election procedures were “equally open” and provided equal “opportunity” to minorities based on “the totality of circumstances.”

Arizona allows all voters to vote by mail or in person for nearly a month before Election Day. Its rules are hardly burdensome based on the totality of circumstances, Justice Alito notes. Even the Biden Justice Department didn’t dispute that Arizona’s rules are kosher under Section 2.

This should have been a 9-0 decision, yet the three liberal Justices want to relitigate Shelby. In an especially dyspeptic dissent, Justice Elena Kagan drags in the ghost of Dred Scott and extraneous facts about current political debates to echo the progressive narrative that conservatives are neutering the Voting Rights Act. It is her worst opinion as a Justice.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared on Thursday, “It is simply unconscionable that the Court’s conservative majority chose to double down on their gutting of the Voting Rights Act, failing to properly respond to a wave of restrictive and discriminatory laws in the wake of Shelby.”

This is pure demagoguery. The Justices are strengthening the Voting Rights Act by establishing parameters for lower courts to prevent its political abuse. Justice Alito notes that courts should give consideration to whether election rules and procedures were common in 1982. This could scuttle challenges to restrictions on early and absentee voting.

He also explains that “the strength of the state interests—such as the strong and entirely legitimate state interest in preventing election fraud—served by a challenged voting rule is an important factor. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is also a valid and important state interest.” Liberal Justices disagree.

The standard in the Kagan dissent would require states to prove there are no less restrictive means to safeguard elections and strike down any policy with a disparate impact on minorities, no matter how small. Based on the dissent, New York City’s ranked-choice voting system could violate Section 2 because it is biased against low-information voters. Don’t laugh. Progressive groups and City Council members argued this in a lawsuit.

As Justice Alito writes, the voting regime that liberal Justices want “would have the effect of invalidating a great many neutral voting regulations with long pedigrees that are reasonable means of pursuing legitimate interests. It would also transfer much of the authority to regulate election procedures from the States to the federal courts.”

That has been the goal of progressives since Shelby. The Court majority doesn’t deny that racially discriminatory voting policies may still exist, and it declines to establish a definitive test for establishing Section 2 violations. But it has now blocked liberal groups from using the courts to achieve what they can’t democratically. This is judicial modesty at its finest.