Southern states compete to redraw district maps after SCOTUS ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision was divided along conservative and liberal lines and effectively invalidated Section 2 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
WASHINGTON – After hearing multiple election-related cases this term, the Supreme Court could hear more cases this fall as political parties continue to fight over whether various voting rules prevent election fraud or disenfranchise voters.
The justices will decide in the coming days whether to review laws in Arkansas and Texas that voting rights groups say make it illegally difficult for people with limited English proficiency to vote.
They are also being asked by the Trump administration to reinstate Arizona’s voter registration rules that lower courts have argued suppress the vote.
And Republicans are appealing a court ruling on mail-in voting in Pennsylvania that could boost Democrats’ chances in the battleground state.
If the justices agree to accept either case, arguments will likely be heard during their next term, which begins in October, and a decision will be issued after the midterm elections.
Let’s take a look at the pending appeals that the Supreme Court could accept or deny as early as June 22nd.
Arkansas limits the number of voters a person can support.
Latino civil rights groups are challenging an Arkansas law that makes it a crime for anyone other than an election official to help more than six voters cast their votes.
State officials say the law, which has been in place since 2009, prevents “professional advocates” from abusing federal civil rights laws that allow voters to receive assistance with English and other issues.
The immigrant advocacy group Arkansas United said it has received more requests to help vote than it can handle due to state restrictions.
A federal judge ruled against the state. However, a federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling that the Voting Rights Act could only be enforced by the federal government and not through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, representing Arkansas United, is appealing the decision in hopes of repealing the Arkansas law and protecting individuals’ right to file other voting rights challenges.
Texas limits who can vote by mail
Another type of restriction on voter assistance is at the heart of the questions that various voting rights groups are raising against the Texas law.
Texas’ 2020 election integrity bill makes it a crime to pay someone to help you vote by mail.
Groups challenging the restrictions argued that state law prohibits social services organizations from assisting voters with disabilities or non-English proficiency, which violates the Voting Rights Act.
A federal judge agreed, but an appeals court reversed that decision.
Texas says the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct, arguing there is no conflict between federal and state law because federal law is silent on the issue of compensation for voter assistance.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union said judges should get involved because state legislatures are increasingly imposing new burdens on voters who should be protected by federal law.
Trump administration upholds Arizona rule blocked by court
Republicans hope to suppress voting by reinstating Arizona’s state voter registration law, which a lower court has ruled violates federal rules.
The National Voter Registration Act requires states to “accept and use” standard forms to register voters for federal elections. The form requires voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens. By contrast, Arizona’s voter registration form requires documentation of citizenship.
One issue at issue is whether voters who register using federal forms can be barred from voting by mail unless they provide proof of citizenship. Another is whether Arizona must allow voters who have filed state registration forms but not citizenship documents to vote in federal elections.
The Supreme Court is also asked to decide whether the way Arizona purges the voter rolls of people it determines may not be citizens violates a federal ban on systematic deregistration within 90 days after an election.
The federal government, which challenged Arizona’s rules during the Biden administration, is now defending them.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department told the Supreme Court that it should hear the Republican National Committee’s appeal to resolve “these important election law issues outside the arena of the contested election.”
Republican Party Appeals Decision on Pennsylvania Voting Rules
In recent years, election officials in Pennsylvania threw away thousands of mail-in ballots that didn’t have proper dates on their return envelopes until a court ruling stopped them.
An appeals court last year said the state’s date requirements can prevent voter fraud only in “extremely rare” circumstances, but that this is not a sufficient reason to justify disqualifying “probably proper ballots.”
Republicans argue that if the court can declare “perhaps the least burdensome voting rule imaginable” unconstitutional, “no voting rule or rule is safe from unlimited and unstandardized federal judicial review.”
The original reason for the date requirement, which began in the 1940s, was to ensure that ballots received after an election were submitted before the polls closed.
But Democrats argue that the date requirement no longer serves its intended purpose, as Pennsylvania now requires absentee ballots to be received by Election Day.
Democratic voters are more likely to vote by mail than Republicans, so a Supreme Court refusal to intervene could give them an advantage in future elections.
