Are Voting Integrity Laws Inherently Racist?

by | Aug 16, 2021 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What role do states have in making sure that their elections are free, fair, and transparent? The recent Supreme Court case Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC) looks to answer these questions for elections laws in Arizona. This case revolves around the allegations by the DNC that requiring voters cast their in-person votes in the precinct where they live and that limiting who can collect and deliver early ballots have a racially disparate impact on voters, and are racially motivated. But what did the court find in their opinion?

Voting Rights Act

Lets start with the Voting Rights Act. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) claimed that Arizonas voting laws violated section 2 of this act.

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

52 U. S. C. §10301(a) – Voting Rights Act

Subsection (a) of the Voting Rights Act is Congress making law thats necessary and proper to execute the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XV

The Voting Rights Act went on to detail what might deny someone the right to vote.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

52 U. S. C. §10301(b) – Voting Rights Act

There are a few things to notice with this part of the legislation. First, its not enough to show that a single circumstance of discrimination based on race or color is a violation of the law; it’s the totality of circumstances. Second, since this act covers both elections and nominations to office, it would also apply to primaries and caucuses. Also, this law does not establish a quota. There is no right to have a certain number of those elected to office based on their proportion of the population.

Now, lets get to the meat of the law as it relates to this case.

It is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a)

There are several ways the election process could not be equally open to a group based on race or color. While the most obvious, a law restricting such access would be a violation, the law takes into consideration other ways of unlawful discrimination.

In that, its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

This is what the DNC alleged in their lawsuit. That two parts of Arizonas election law provide less opportunity for blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics to vote. The first was the law requiring that ballots cast in the wrong precinct not be counted; the second was that only certain people are allowed to collect early ballots was claimed to be enacted with discriminatory intent. Lets look at these complaints separately.

Precinct Voting

First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address…. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted.

Brnovich v. DNC

Some counties divide themselves up into voting precincts. According to Arizona law, citizens must vote in the precinct where they live. According to Justice Kagan, and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, who joined in her dissent…

…the out-of-precinct policy—results in Hispanic and African American votersballots being thrown out at a statistically higher rate than those of whites.

Does the fact that Hispanic and black voters cast their ballots in the wrong precinct at a higher rate than white (a fact I did not find the dissent providing any evidence of) mean that they have less opportunity to vote? Justice Kagan also claims that Arizona has more offenders of their out-of-precinct law than any other state. Again, I ask the question, how would the fact that out-of-precinct voting happens more often in Arizona than other states show that the law provides less opportunity to vote based on race or color? According to the majority of the court, it doesnt.

Having to identify ones polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the usual burdens of voting.” … In addition, the State made extensive efforts to reduce the impact of the out-of-precinct policy on the number of valid votes ultimately cast, e.g., by sending a sample ballot to each household that includes a voters proper polling location. The burdens of identifying and traveling to ones assigned precinct are also modest when considering Arizonas political processes” as a whole. The State offers other easy ways to vote, which likely explains why out-of-precinct votes on election day makeup such a small and apparently diminishing portion of overall ballots cast.

WATCH THE VIDEO AND SUBSCRIBE ON RUMBLE

 

Third-Party Ballot Collection

Next, lets look at the second claim by the DNC that limiting third-party ballot collection is racist.

Arizonas law mostly banning third-party ballot collection also results in a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities. The problem with that law again lies in facts nearly unique to Arizona—here, the presence of rural Native American communities that lack ready access to mail service.

At first, this argument by the dissent seems to have merit. However, as I reviewed their argument, one thing stood out. Justice Kagan only discussed the option of mailing in an early ballot. The majority of the court noted that postal service is only one of several methods of sending in early ballots:

Arizonans can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early ballot drop box, or an authorized election officials office.

The majority also compared the effort required to find a mailbox, post office, ballot drop box, authorized elect officials office, or a family member, household member, or caregiver to do so for you, with the compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures.” Dissent mentioned that its a crime in Arizona for someone to tamper with a ballot, but as weve seen, laws dont stop people from committing crimes. While the dissent agrees with the District Court that:

Tamper-evident envelopes and a rigorous voter signature verification procedure” protect against any such attempts.

Recent elections show thats not entirely true, with significant problems with signature verification reported in Nevada, Texas, Michigan, and Georgia. Furthermore, while such procedures may limit the tampering with ballots, they do nothing to prevent the introduction of fake ballots into the system by third parties with political agendas.

Again, setting aside the partisan question, do the Arizona laws provide unequal opportunities for people of all races and colors to vote? Not inherently, though a case could be made that there need to be sufficient legitimate ballot drop-off locations where postal locations are not readily available. I decided not to go through the legal mumbo-jumbo this time, and there was plenty, but to focus on the question of racism, since its used as a bludgeon so often in society today.

As the court found, its not racist to put in basic laws to ensure voter integrity. Its not racist to require that people vote in the county or precinct where they live. And its not racist to limit who has access to the ballots before they are counted.

Sometimes I wonder who is racist: The person claiming everyones vote should be protected, or the one who claims rules to limit opportunities for fraud are racist?

Paul Engel

Author and speaker Paul Engel has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. That experience helps Paul explain difficult concepts in a way most people can understand. As one manager described, “Paul can take the most complex idea and explain it in a way my grandmother can understand.” Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock (a Saturday morning cartoon) than in 12 years of school,” he says that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. Since 2014 I have been helping everyday Americans read and study the Constitution of their country and teaching the rising generation to be free. Using news and current events as a springboard, I explain the Constitution and encourage others to stand up and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves, their children, and the nation.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.
CofixRX
Drama Queens and Manufactured Outrage

Drama Queens and Manufactured Outrage

Recently as a country we’ve been subjected to an outbreak of outrage over the treatment of illegal aliens – YES ILLEGAL ALIENS – that have been detained trying to cross into the United States from Mexico, all illegally instead of through an official Port of Entry.  ...

Inciting Violence

Inciting Violence

Shortly after my last article about the children separated from parents who illegally enter our country, President Trump signed an order to re-unite the children with their parents, and that has moved along expeditiously. That however did not quell the vicious attacks...

The Derangement of Compassionate Fascists

The Derangement of Compassionate Fascists

As a conservative, I could not be more grateful or pleased for their contributions to Trump’s continued Presidency and the assurance of his re-election in 2020, then that provided by the continuing Mueller circus, the daily visual presence of Hillary Clinton and the...

No Elijah, It’s About Seeking Justice

No Elijah, It’s About Seeking Justice

During the Congressional hearings with FBI Inspector General Horowitz concerning the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s improper handling of e-mail communications during her tenure as Secretary of State, Democrat Congressman...

The Political Pendulum is Swinging Right

The Political Pendulum is Swinging Right

I watched the historic meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un in its entirety but the attached link is the best of all of them. Although it is most certainly a propaganda piece for the North Korean people and the commentator was lauding the greatness of demi...

Twenty-Five Years

Twenty-Five Years

Ever wonder where the vitriolic hatred displayed daily towards President Trump by the liberal left, Hollywood, the traditional news media, and from the Democrat Party comes from? The answer is really pretty simple. Certainly President Trump’s brashness and his...

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.
CofixRX
America Out Loud 6 years

Celebrating 6 incredible years fighting to restore liberty and justice to our beloved America.

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

 

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations. Please consider making a contribution in the fight for liberty!

Healthycell
iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

Truth For Health

Apple Podcasts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

URGENT - KEEP NINE
Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link