Conservatives have been impossibly frustrated by the irregularities in the 2020 presidential election that have gone mostly unchallenged. Fortunately, laws from at least one state may get the chance to make the next election more secure.
The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the verge of upholding election laws that would protect voter integrity, the Daily Wire reported. Two cases from Arizona currently being heard are favored to uphold laws lower courts struck down for supposed racial discrimination, according to one expert.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee were consolidated for arguments before the high court. One deals with Arizona election rules that throw out provisional ballots cast in-person but at not at the voter’s correct precinct on Election Day. The other restricts who can handle absentee ballots in an effort to prevent ballot harvesting.
Lower courts decided both were in violation of the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court could change overturn that. “It would not be a surprise to see the high court disagree with a lower-court ruling and leave the restrictions in place,” Robert Barnes, U.S. Supreme Court reporter for the Washington Post, said.
Barnes based his opinion on arguments from more conservative justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and President Donald Trump appointees Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. “In general, the conservative justices seemed inclined to support Arizona’s laws, while the court’s three liberal justices indicated that courts should conduct a more searching investigation into the way seemingly neutral laws work against minority voters.”
The 2020 presidential election was called the “most secure in American history” by officials, but many had their doubts. The coronavirus pandemic permitted an unprecedented number of early and mail-in votes, which rightly raised concerns about the lack of voter identification and verification that may have skewed results.
Democrats often push back at measures that require identification and other practical means to verify that the ballot being cast matches the person casting it. Notably, President Joe Biden’s administration has taken the “unusual” step this time, asserting in a letter to the courts that the two laws being argued at the Supreme Court did not violate voters’ rights.
To say that it’s somehow racist or exclusionary to require identification or to limit who can possess another’s ballot is condescending and simply false. There’s no reason an adult capable of voting couldn’t be equally as capable of filling out the proper forms to obtain a state ID at a minimum. Allowing anyone but those closest to the voter to fill out or handle absentee ballots is absurdly irresponsible as well. Free and fair elections depend on only allowing verifiably eligible voters to cast ballots — and that’s a fact that applies to every race, color, and creed.