Ballot Harvesting Ban Case Hits the Supreme Court
Where are we on voter integrity?
Anyone expecting the Supreme Court to affirmatively protect voter integrity was kidding themselves. We're far enough behind the ball that we're hoping that the Supreme Court protects the rights of states to ban grotesque violations like ballot harvesting.
It's easy to spit and dismiss that out of hand, but if you want to imagine the political system being a whole lot closer to doomsday, preventing states from stopping ballot harvesting would do it. But there are also bigger stakes in the mix in Brnovich v. DNC.
A major reason why little could be done about the 2020 election is that the Voting Rights Act rigged the system. The Democrats are free to argue that any interference with their electorate is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans can't make that argument because political affiliation isn't protected. That's also why conservatives can be fired from their jobs for their political views, meanwhile other classes are protected by the legal system.
The Voting Rights Act is the nuclear weapon of Democrat election rigging. And the conservative judiciary has been chipping away at its abuses.
I take a backseat to no one in my loathing of Roberts, but Shelby County v. Holder was significant in ways that didn't manifest right away, but that undermined the horrifying VRA nightmare entire states had been living under in which their voting practices were bound to federal control based on events from generations ago.
Brnovich v. DNC takes on a very basic issue.
In 2016, Arizona passed HB 2023 to restrict ballot harvesting in Arizona unless the person collecting the ballot is a family member, a person living in the same household, or a caregiver. Since the 1970s, Arizona has required people to vote at their specific precinct.
Attorney General Brnovich intervened on behalf of Arizona after the Secretary of State refused to defend the measures
There's a very good reason for that, as discussed in my article, "The Real Presidential Election was Rigged in 2018".
iVote spent $6 million to rig the battleground in key states. Benson took control in Michigan, while in Arizona, a state where the Republican candidate was expected to win, Katie Hobbs, another radical leftist, won in a close election in 2018.
Arizona Democrats spent over $2 million just on TV ads for Hobbs. $895,000 came from iVote.
In Arizona, Katie Hobbs desperately fought to keep Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, a case involving the state's ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting ban that had been illegally struck down by 9th Circuit Court Democrat judges.
While the case went to the Supreme Court, Hobbs and Arizona Democrats are still fighting it.
But the more significant part of this may be the dismantling of another part of the Democrat election nuking VRA weapon.
In the aftermath of the chaos that was the 2020 election-related litigation, it is easy to forget that the Supreme Court is now set to decide the most consequential election law dispute in nearly a decade. At issue in Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC is nothing less than the future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the nationwide prohibition of any election regulation that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The court will likely resolve a significant circuit split over whether a disparate racial effect alone renders unlawful an otherwise legitimate state election regulation. In doing so, the court will set the boundaries for future state election laws, and it may even comment on the continuing vitality of disparate-impact liability.
The key point though is equality vs. equity.
As Judge Frank Easterbrook put it for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in sustaining Wisconsin’s voter ID law, Section 2 is an “equal-treatment requirement,” not an “equal-outcome command.”
You know of course what the other side wants.