The Supreme Court tested the remainder of the Voting Rights Act


0

But Paul M. Smith, attorney at Legal Campaign Center, who introduced Summary supports competitors, He said lower courts have put in place a reasonable framework for identifying restrictions that violate Section 2.

He said, “It is not enough for al-Qaeda to have a racially disparate influence.” “This disparity should be linked to and explained by the history of discrimination in the judiciary. We hope the court will recognize the importance of maintaining this practical test, which plays a key role in restraining laws that work to burden blacks or Latinos from voting.”

The two groups of attorneys defending the proceedings in Arizona have not agreed on the standard the Supreme Court should adopt to maintain the impugned restrictions. State Attorney Mr. Bernovic said that the disparate influence on minority voters should be substantive and result from the objected practice and not due to some other factor. Arizona Republican attorneys have taken a more hawkish stance, saying that race-neutral election regulations that impose normal voting burdens are never subject to challenge under Section 2.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, Ruling that both Arizona restrictions violated Section 2 Because they disproportionately denied minority voters.

In 2016, black, Latin, and Native American voters were twice as likely to vote in the wrong district compared to white voters. Judge William A. Fletcher He wrote to the majority in Resolution 7 to 4. He said that among the reasons for this were “frequent changes in polling sites; confusion between locating polling places; and high rates of residential mobility.”

Likewise, he wrote, the ban on ballot collectors has had a major impact on minority voters, who use ballot-collecting services far more than white voters because they are more likely to be poor, elderly, homey, or disabled; Lack of reliable transportation, childcare and postal service; And you need help understanding voting rules.

Judge Fletcher added that “there is no evidence of any fraud in the long history of third-party polling in the state of Arizona.”


Like it? Share with your friends!

0

What's Your Reaction?

hate hate
0
hate
confused confused
0
confused
fail fail
0
fail
fun fun
0
fun
geeky geeky
0
geeky
love love
0
love
lol lol
0
lol
omg omg
0
omg
win win
0
win
Joseph

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *