Supreme Court It was ruled on Thursday to support a bill backed by the Arizona Republican Party, which makes it easier for the state to impose voting restrictions. The High Court overturned the decision of the lower court in Arizona, which found that the bill disproportionately harmed black and Latino voters.
The 6-3 ruling included the rulings of all six conservatives that the bill did not violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This decision was made after the Republican leaders in Georgia and other states are passing the new bill. They claimed that after Donald Trump lost to President Joe Biden, they claimed to prevent voter fraud.
According to statistics, voter fraud only occurs 0.0025% of the time Washington post.
This Associated Press Note how the bill stipulates that voters who participate in all elections during the two election cycles, whether it is municipal, primary or ordinary elections, will receive an email asking if they want to stay on the early voting list.
If they respond, nothing will change. If they choose not to respond within 90 days, their names will be removed from the list, but they will still be registered voters. They can rejoin the active early voting list at any time, but the votes will not reach their mailbox.If they voted personally in every election over a four-year period, they would still Clear Never use early voting in the early voting list.
Removing these voters from permanent early voting will make them less likely to participate in future elections. Increasing the chances of mail-in voting will allow marginal voters to participate in the vote, while voters who choose not to participate will still be retained.
Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, 125,000 to 150,000 voters will be removed from the list. Anyone who does not receive a mailed ballot must vote in person, which can be difficult for the Arizona Native American population living on tribal land or elderly voters who do not live near polling stations.
State Republicans argue that the bill will save money if they do not send mail-in ballots to people who do not use them, and limit the fraud risks of ballots that leave the election office and never return.
The Democrats believe that the cost is very low, and there is no evidence that unused votes were used fraudulently. Fraudsters must complete the arduous task of forging voter signatures. If the owner of the mailed ballot asks for a replacement or vote in person, election officials will catch up. Democrats also believe that the bill will have a disproportionate impact on people of color.
Justice Samuel Alito defended the ruling.
He wrote: “The fact that there are some differences in impact does not necessarily mean that the system is not equal and open, or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
Judge Elena Kagan issued an objection.
“The sad thing here is that the court has once again The rewrite is to weaken the regulations as a great monument of the United States and prevent its most despicable impulses. Sadly, the court broke the regulations designed to end voting discrimination,” Kagan wrote.
Senate Republicans last week Blocked It will expand voting rights and establish national voting standards and expand democratic legislation for early voting.
Biden compared similar laws in Georgia with the “Jim Crow” law, which prohibited African Americans from voting in southern states for a century after the Civil War, until President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 “Vote Rights Act.
