{"id":5899,"date":"2021-08-23T20:49:15","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T20:49:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5899"},"modified":"2021-08-23T20:49:15","modified_gmt":"2021-08-23T20:49:15","slug":"the-supreme-court-leaves-the-voting-rights-act-alive-but-only-barely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5899","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court leaves the Voting Rights Act alive \u2014 but only barely"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Brnovich\u00a0<\/em>upholds both Arizona laws \u2014 a provision that disenfranchises voters for casting a ballot in the wrong precinct, and another that prevents most third parties from delivering another voter\u2019s absentee ballot to a polling place. But Alito\u2019s opinion most likely preserves civil rights plaintiffs\u2019 ability to challenge many of the most odious provisions of the\u00a0voter suppression laws<\/a>\u00a0currently being pushed by Republican state lawmakers in other states.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n


“the opinion is limited in scope.\u00a0Brnovich<\/em>\u00a0does not apply to all Voting Rights Act cases, or even to all cases involving the law\u2019s \u201cresults test\u201d \u2014 the specific provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case. Rather, the opinion limits its analysis to \u201ccases involving neutral time, place, and manner rules\u201d governing elections. Thus, while\u00a0Brnovich<\/em>\u00a0does shrink the Voting Rights Act considerably, it primarily does so in this limited context.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n


“Alito lays out five factors that govern future \u201ctime, place and manner\u201d lawsuits (more on this five-factor test below). One of the practical upshots of these five new factors is that states will largely be free to enact voting rules that were common in 1982, when a key amendment to the Voting Rights Act became law. But novel restrictions on the right to vote are less likely to survive judicial scrutiny.”\u00a0\u00a0
…
“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the seminal law that broke the back of Jim Crow, along with the\u00a0previous year\u2019s Civil Rights Act of 1964<\/a>. It is arguably the most successful civil rights law in American history, and it was this nation\u2019s first serious legislative attempt since Reconstruction to build a pluralistic democracy rooted in the principle of racial equality.”\u00a0\u00a0
…
“Under a 1982 amendment to the law, the Voting Rights Act has three prongs, but the Supreme Court has either\u00a0deactivated or severely weakened two of these prongs<\/a>. The first is \u201cpreclearance,\u201d which required states with a history of racist voting practices to \u201cpreclear\u201d any new voting practices with officials in Washington, DC \u2014 in order to ensure that those practices did not discriminate on the basis of race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court gutted preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder<\/em><\/a> (2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second prong of the Voting Rights Act is known as the \u201cintent test,\u201d and it prohibits state voting practices enacted with racist intent. But, in Abbott v. Perez<\/em><\/a> (2018), the Supreme Court held that lawmakers enjoy such a high presumption of racial innocence<\/a> that it is nearly impossible to prove invidious intent, except in the most egregious cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That leaves the third prong of the law, known as the \u201cresults test,\u201d which derives from the Voting Rights Act\u2019s language forbidding a state election practice that \u201cresults in a denial or abridgement of the right … to vote on account of race or color.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Alito\u2019s opinion is vague, and it leaves as many questions open as it answers. When courts are faced with \u201ctime, place, and manner\u201d cases under the Voting Rights Act, he writes, \u201cany circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is \u2018equally open\u2019 and affords equal \u2018opportunity\u2019 may be considered.\u201d Nevertheless, he also provides a non-exhaustive list of five factors that \u201cshould be mentioned.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“One impact of this decision, in other words, is that many laws that have a disparate impact on voters of color will be upheld \u2014 though it is not yet clear just how severe a law\u2019s impact on minority voters must be before the courts will intervene.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The upshot of\u00a0Brnovich<\/em>, in other words, is that it gives states tremendous power to roll back expansions of voting rights such as early voting and expanded access to absentee ballots, although that power may be limited if such restrictions are imposed in ways that clearly target voters of color.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/7\/1\/22559046\/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-brnovich-dnc-samuel-alito-elena-kagan-democracy<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Brnovich upholds both Arizona laws \u2014 a provision that disenfranchises voters for casting a ballot in the wrong precinct, and another that prevents most third parties from delivering another voter\u2019s absentee ballot to a polling place. But Alito\u2019s opinion most likely preserves civil rights plaintiffs\u2019 ability to challenge many of the most odious provisions of the voter suppression laws currently being pushed by Republican state lawmakers in other states.”<\/p>\n

“the opinion is limited in scope. Brnovich does not apply to all Voting Rights Act cases, or even to all cases involving the law\u2019s \u201cresults test\u201d \u2014 the specific provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case. Rather, the opinion limits its analysis to \u201ccases involving neutral time, place, and manner rules\u201d governing elections. Thus, while Brnovich does shrink the Voting Rights Act considerably, it primarily does so in this limited context.”<\/p>\n

“Alito lays out five factors that govern future \u201ctime, place and manner\u201d lawsuits (more on this five-factor test below). One of the practical upshots of these five new factors is that states will largely be free to enact voting rules that were common in 1982, when a key amendment to the Voting Rights Act became law. But novel restrictions on the right to vote are less likely to survive judicial scrutiny.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the seminal law that broke the back of Jim Crow, along with the previous year\u2019s Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is arguably the most successful civil rights law in American history, and it was this nation\u2019s first serious legislative attempt since Reconstruction to build a pluralistic democracy rooted in the principle of racial equality.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Under a 1982 amendment to the law, the Voting Rights Act has three prongs, but the Supreme Court has either deactivated or severely weakened two of these prongs. The first is \u201cpreclearance,\u201d which required states with a history of racist voting practices to \u201cpreclear\u201d any new voting practices with officials in Washington, DC \u2014 in order to ensure that those practices did not discriminate on the basis of race.
\nThe Supreme Court gutted preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder (2013).<\/p>\n

The second prong of the Voting Rights Act is known as the \u201cintent test,\u201d and it prohibits state voting practices enacted with racist intent. But, in Abbott v. Perez (2018), the Supreme Court held that lawmakers enjoy such a high presumption of racial innocence that it is nearly impossible to prove invidious intent, except in the most egregious cases.<\/p>\n

That leaves the third prong of the law, known as the \u201cresults test,\u201d which derives from the Voting Rights Act\u2019s language forbidding a state election practice that \u201cresults in a denial or abridgement of the right … to vote on account of race or color.\u201d”<\/p>\n

“Alito\u2019s opinion is vague, and it leaves as many questions open as it answers. When courts are faced with \u201ctime, place, and manner\u201d cases under the Voting Rights Act, he writes, \u201cany circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is \u2018equally open\u2019 and affords equal \u2018opportunity\u2019 may be considered.\u201d Nevertheless, he also provides a non-exhaustive list of five factors that \u201cshould be mentioned.\u201d”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“One impact of this decision, in other words, is that many laws that have a disparate impact on voters of color will be upheld \u2014 though it is not yet clear just how severe a law\u2019s impact on minority voters must be before the courts will intervene.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The upshot of Brnovich, in other words, is that it gives states tremendous power to roll back expansions of voting rights such as early voting and expanded access to absentee ballots, although that power may be limited if such restrictions are imposed in ways that clearly target voters of color.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[536,528,714,1325,479],"class_list":["post-5899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-rights","tag-supreme-court","tag-voter-fraud","tag-voter-suppression","tag-voting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5899"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5900,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899\/revisions\/5900"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}