Supreme Court reinstates voting restrictions and demoralizes Democrats

Supreme Court reinstates voting restrictions and demoralizes Democrats

Well, this is welcome news. Arizona remains relatively sane after all. The Supreme Court there has reinstated a law banning “ballot harvesting.” Democrats are livid as this is a process where absentee ballots are collected by third parties, thus leaving the door wide open for voter fraud. The infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law Friday. After an emergency appeal filed by Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, the Supreme Court reinstated the law. Maybe there is still hope for the Supreme Court after all.

The courts typically apply the Purcell principle in cases such as this. It dictates that the courts should not interfere with election rules in the period just before an election. In the weeks before the 2014 federal elections, the Supreme Court applied this principle in challenges arising from Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas.

vote

From BizPac Review:

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

The Supreme Court reinstated an Arizona law Saturday banning so-called “ballot harvesting,” dealing a blow to Democratic groups just days before the presidential election.

Ballot harvesting refers to an absentee voting practice, legal in some states, in which absentee ballots can be collected and turned into authorities by a third party. Arizona outlawed the practice this year. The ban was challenged by Democratic groups in the state, who claim it placed an unlawful burden on the right to vote, particularly for minority groups.

The en banc 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in a 6-5 vote Friday. Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who hears emergency petitions arising from the 9th Circuit, referred the case to the full Court. Reagan’s application for a stay was granted, meaning the law will remain in place for the November election. The order did not disclose how the justices voted, which is not unusual in these circumstances.

UC Irvine School of Law professor Rick Hasen explained why this case is so difficult to wrestle with: “I confess I find this to be a difficult case. On the one hand, the state does have an interest in preventing voter fraud, and when fraud does happen (including in parts of Arizona) it has been with absentee ballots and vote buying. Discouraging ballot harvesters can deal with that risk of vote buying…On the other hand, there is some evidence that the great distances in Arizona means that some voters, especially Native Americans, may be burdened by the lack of third parties available to collect ballots.”

The Supreme Court called this one right. Native Americans are adults and as such are capable of making arrangements for their votes to be made. The distance excuse doesn’t cut it with me. This law short circuits voter fraud and that is always a good thing. Vote buying and fraud are rampant out there and this ruling quashes some of that.

vote1

Avatar

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is an editor and writer for Right Wing News. She owns and blogs at NoisyRoom.net. She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon's site, New Zeal - trevorloudon.com. She also does research at KeyWiki.org. You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!