[EL] Brnovich

[Stephanie F Singer]

NCSL is another good source for election law by topic across jurisdictions.

> On Jul 1, 2021, at 10:15 AM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m guessing that someone can send me a link to this information— Which states don’t count any offices on ballots cast in the wrong precinct — by statute?  Per court order?   
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 1, 2021, at 10:38 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court on 6-3 Vote Rejects Voting Rights Act Section 2 Case in Brnovich Case— A Significant Weakening of Section 2 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=123065>
>> July 1, 2021, 7:07 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=123065>RICK HASEN <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting rights Act as a tool to fight against laws that make it harder to register and vote. Rather than focus on disparate impact—whether a law leads to minority voters registering or voting in lower numbers—the court applies a much broader totality of the circumstances test with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the state and its restrictive law. If a law imposes just a “usual burden of voting,” and the burden on minorities is not too much, and the state can assert (but does not need to prove) a significant interest in preventing voter fraud or another interest, then the law can stand.
>> 
>> When you couple this opinion with the 2008 ruling in the Crawford case, upholding Indiana’s voter ID law against a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenge, the 2013 ruling in Shelby County killing off the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act for states with a history of discrimination, and today’s reading of Section 2, the conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting law.
>> 
>> The Court today also makes it harder to prove intentional racial discrimination in passing a voting rule, making it that much harder for DOJ to win in its suit against the new Georgia voting law.
>> 
>> I’ll more more analysis later. This is not a death blow for Section 2 claims, but it will make it much, much harder for such challenges to succeed.
>> 
>> Opinion.  <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf>‘[This post has been updated.]
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -- 
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210701/6af42fcb/attachment.html>