“The decision is a positive step for the rule of law and a setback for lawsuits that hamstring states from running efficient elections.”
“The two Arizona laws were challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, and under the 15th Amendment’s ban on intentional race discrimination in voting. The result should make it harder for Democrats to bring knee-jerk lawsuits over every change in voting laws without showing that they present a genuinely discriminatory obstacle to the overall opportunity to vote. The Court also made clear that a Section 2 case cannot be based on attacks on the purpose or intent of the legislators without showing that there was, in fact, a discriminatory effect on the opportunity to vote.”
“Helen Purcell, in support of Arizona, argues that over the years Arizona has taken considerable steps in their voting rights laws to assure ease of voting and equal opportunity for all citizens. From absentee voting, early voting, accommodations for those with disabilities, and emergency voting, Purcell maintains that Arizona has done its duty to assure accessible voting for all its citizens. The Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, in support of Arizona, agrees that Arizona’s laws serve to make voting easier and secure, and do not result in discrimination of any particular racial group. Indeed, RPPC claims that as Arizona’s population has increased, its voter turnout has steadily kept pace which shows that voter disenfranchisement is not an issue. But allowing third-parties to collect votes, RPPC contends, would take away the integrity of secure voting and serve to devalue the system”Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s passionate statement gave no details as to how this US Supreme Court decision effects or impacts citizens voting in Oregon. Some citizens believe the Secretary of State’s office should not be a partisan office but should be managed for the benefit and rights of all Oregonians.
|Post Date: 2021-07-19 09:13:18||Last Update: 2021-07-19 09:35:27|