The Supreme Court of the United States has validated this Thursday two electoral norms of the State of Arizona, which leave the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reduced to a minimum effect. The ruling, by six votes to three, argued by Judge Samuel Alito, means that from now on it will be more difficult to question the new laws approved by state legislatures, drawn up in the heat of Donald Trump’s allegations of electoral fraud in the presidential elections. 2020. President Joe Biden’s immediate response after hearing the ruling was blunt, declaring that “democracy is at stake”
What the Supreme Court decided on was two Arizona laws that, according to Democrats, restrict access to the vote for racial minorities. The ruling refers to a rule in that state that stipulates that provisional ballots cast in the wrong district must be discarded. The second rule on which the Supreme Court ruled makes it illegal for third parties to deliver votes, a practice that Republicans call “vote harvesting.” Last year a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, ruled that those Arizona rules violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because they disproportionately affect minority groups. But, this Thursday, the highest court in the country has reinstated those two regulations, considering that because the voting system is “inconvenient for some” it does not mean that access to vote is unequal.
The reply to judge Alito has been given by one of the three liberal judges who make up the Court. Elena Kagan accused the new super majority represented by the Supreme Court, after the passage of Donald Trump (who managed to appoint three magistrates, in a position that is for life), of rewriting “once again” the Law of the Right to Vote. “Never before has a regulation [en referencia a la ley de 1965] it has done so much to advance and promote one of the fundamental ideas of the nation, ”argues Kagan. “Few laws are so vital at the present time,” continues the judge. “And yet,” the judge disagrees, “in the last decade this court has treated this legislation worse than any other.”
To date, the Voting Rights Act was the nation’s governing law and the most effective rule of civil rights law in all of U.S. history.After 1965, the rule has been reauthorized up to five times since its inception. approval in the mid-1960s for practical reasons, never political. That law is practically a dead letter as of Thursday, since what remains of it is a section of the provision that prohibits that, based on race, votes can be redistributed based on the district.
After Trump’s outcry that there had been fraud and the elections had been stolen, which ended up leading to the assault on the Capitol on January 6, there were many states – specifically those with a Republican majority in their Congress – that began to shape voting laws so that critics say they could restrict minority suffrage. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, after Joe Biden’s winning election, more than 20 voting laws have been enacted in more than 15 states.
On the 22nd, the US Senate overthrew the great electoral reform to which Biden aspired. After a smooth passage through the House of Representatives, where the Democrats have a majority, known as HR1, or the People’s Law, he crashed into the Senate. It was no use that the Democratic Party showed unity by finally joining the fractious vote of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. The greatest renewal of the electoral system in eight decades died even before it was born. There was not even room for debate.
Subscribe here to the newsletter from EL PAÍS América and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of the region