WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will review a 2016 Arizona law that bars anyone but a family member or caregiver from returning another person’s early ballot. The law itself, however, remains in effect through the presidential election and until the justices rule.
In the Arizona case, a federal appeals court ruled in January that Arizona’s law banning so-called “ballot harvesting” violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, but the court put its ruling on hold while the Supreme Court was asked to take the case.
This is bullshit. The Rethugliklan Voter Suppression Team® went to court and lost. Then they appealed it and lost. The judgement should’ve stayed in place until the SCOTUS overturned it.
Here we go…watch closely which cases the new Republican court takes, because those will be the ones that they think they can use as vehicles to overturn every progressive policy possible. This one looks like at attack on the Voting Rights Act, in the hopes that killing it allows Republicans to get away with all kinds of voter suppression efforts.
They are going to argue this just as the next administration takes office…if it works out that it’s the Biden administration, backed by a Democratic Senate, all they are going to do is give them cover to create a new voting rights act, one that extends voting and cuts out Republican cheating. And, people are going to be behind it, simply because it’s easy to understand that going back to Jim Crow when it comes to the vote is just wrong. If the Republican SC follows a path of undoing everything people want from their government, it will instead be their undoing.
Why are we required to vote in a single specified location? I can see the administrative convenience of the precinct workers confirming you are on the rolls and are who you say you are, but in reality, if you are eligible to vote it should not matter where you actually, physically vote or how you get your ballot submitted. Your right to vote should be as unconstrained as possible, in a perfect world.
If THAT concept were held up, boy would that open a few things up. If the physical location requirement were removed, I could probably support requiring some form of ID to be presented (among multiple options as to the form of the ID and also requiring the states to make getting an ID as easy as possible).
Boy, can you imagine how the counties would make more voting sites open in minority neighborhoods so “those people” don’t wander into the better kept and appointed voting sites in the “nicer” parts of town?!?
This is what the roberts court does. Affected election coming up? Congressional subpoena gonna expire? We’ll get right on that in nine months.
The quantum-mechanical explanation is better than the quasi-legal one.
LOL 
Once upon a time, when everyone voted on paper ballots or mechanical machines, there was no way to sort out precinct level results (at least where I’ve lived, what precinct you were in might affect congressional and legislative seats). These days, the electronics (even with paper ballots) are good enough to do this at the central counting location, and obviously it’s no big deal to check registrations.