[EL] Brnovich

[Brianna Lennon]

Here’s the best reference I could find:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots.aspx#Accept/Reject

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:12 PM Stephanie F Singer <
sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 949.824.3072 - office
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> 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
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> 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/fe3d8d96/attachment.html>