Home 2021 Arizona’s Controversial Voting Law Likely to Be Upheld by the US Supreme Court

Arizona’s Controversial Voting Law Likely to Be Upheld by the US Supreme Court

by Paul Ebeling

#Arizona #voting #law #SupremeCourt

The Court’s majority appeared interested in coming up with a new framework that would allow them to uphold Arizona’s laws“– Paul Ebeling

Tuesday, the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court signaled that they will uphold the Arizona voting law that Democrats claim is in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The Arizona law has a requirement that voters casting their ballot in-person on Election Day do so in their assigned precinct, and that only certain people, such as family or caregivers, can deliver a completed ballot on behalf of another person to their polling place.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Arizona Democratic Party sued last yr to try to overturn the restrictions. And the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals last year found Arizona’s restrictions violated the Voting Rights Act.

The Court of Appeals invalidated those provisions ruling that the state’s “long history of race-based discrimination against its American Indian, Hispanic, and African American citizens,” and noting a “pattern of discrimination against minority voters has continued to the present day.

The 9th Circuit Court also found that “false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud” were used to convince Arizona legislators to enact that restriction with discriminatory intent, violating the US Constitution’s prohibition on denying voting rights based on race.

In the remotely held hearing, the majority expressed skepticism in regards to the tests brought by a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee.

Chief Justice Roberts said that a bipartisan commission found that laws like these may well be needed to prevent voter fraud. Justice Kavanaugh concurred with CJ Roberts.

This important voting rights case comes before the Supreme Court at a time when Republicans in many states are pursuing new restrictions after President Trump made claims of widespread fraud in the 3 November election.

The Justices heard 2 hrs of arguments by Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the state Republican Party on the 9th Circuit’s ruling that found that the voting restrictions at issue disproportionately burdened Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters.

A Key measures makes it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. Another disqualifies ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the 1 to which a voter has been assigned.

A broad ruling by the nation’s highest court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes 3 justices appointed by President Trump, endorsing the restrictions will positively impact the Y 2022 mid-term elections in which Republicans want to regain control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Community activists often engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. The practice dubbed “ballot harvesting,” is legal in some states, with limitations.

Voting rights advocates say voters often cast ballots at the wrong precinct, with the assigned polling place sometimes not the 1 closest to a voter’s home.

Republicans argued that new voting restrictions are needed to combat voter fraud.

A positive ruling by the Supreme Court will hopefully bring about the review and a national standard for voting laws. Plus, restore, in the eyes of the world our system of legitimate voting as a core value of Democracy.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

“Yes, this is a very positive step to correct our maligned and fractured voting system which especially is needed in national elections. It is also very applicable for electing member of Congress. I hope other States will follow suit plus adopt an uniformed voting procedure for all national related elections. As a member of a family that was long ago involved in Shoup Voting Machine who were in some 41 States and at one time, the dominant in the voting machine market, I welcome this step as a way to curb voter manipulation and voter falsification.

The Shoup Voting Machine Corporation, which was originally developed by Samuel Shoup, the inventor of the lever voting machine, was an American manufacturer of voting machines. It was founded in New Jersey in 1905 by Samuel R. Shoup.  Shoup changed its names and locations over the years, before going out of business as Advanced Voting Solutions, Inc. of Frisco, Texas in 2015.

Today, Shoup has been replaced by the now controversial founded Dominion Voting Machine Corporation (DMVC) in 2002 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada by John Poulos and James Hoover.  DVMC was used in the Biden-Trump Election.

As many are aware there are a number of controversial statements that have been made about DMVC including: China invested 400M in Dominion on October 8, 2020. Further, there is controversy around Dominion’s Software developers who are currently under federal investigation 

Congratulations to the State of Arizona for for taking such a leading bold step for such reform which was long overdue,” says LTN’s political editorial contributor Bruce WD Barren.

Helping to make America Great Again, Keep the Faith!

You may also like


Your Trusted Source for Capital Markets & Related News

© 2023 LiveTradingNews.com – For The Traders, By The Traders – All Right Reserved.

The information contained on this website shall not be construed as (i) an offer to purchase or sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell, any securities or services, (ii) investment, legal, business or tax advice or an offer to provide such advice, or (iii) a basis for making any investment decision. An offering may only be made upon a qualified investor’s receipt not via this website of formal materials from the Knightsbridge an offering memorandum and subscription documentation (“offering materials”). In the case of any inconsistency between the information on this website and any such offering materials, the offering materials shall control. Securities shall not be offered or sold in any jurisdiction in which such offer or sale would be unlawful unless the requirements of the applicable laws of such jurisdiction have been satisfied. Any decision to invest in securities must be based solely upon the information set forth in the applicable offering materials, which should be read carefully by qualified investors prior to investing. An investment with Knightsbridge is not suitable or desirable for all investors; investors may lose all or a portion of the capital invested. Investors may be required to bear the financial risks of an investment for an indefinite period of time. Qualified investors are urged to consult with their own legal, financial and tax advisors before making any investment. Knightsbridge is a private investment firm that offers investment services to Qualified Investors, Members and Institutions ONLY. Qualified Investors are defined as individuals who have met those Qualifications in the relevant jurisdictions. Members are defined as individuals who have been accepted into the Knightsbridge membership program. Institutions are defined as entities such as banks, pension funds, and hedge funds. If you are not a Qualified Investor, Member or Institution, you are not eligible to invest with Knightsbridge. All investments involve risk, and there is no guarantee of profit. You may lose some or all of your investment. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Knightsbridge is not a registered investment advisor, and this disclaimer should not be construed as investment advice. Please consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. By accessing this website, you agree to the terms of this disclaimer. Thank you for your interest in Knightsbridge.