SCOTUS Set To Rule If States Can Protect The Integrity Of Their Votes

[mystery-ak]

 SCOTUS Set To Rule If States Can Protect The Integrity Of Their Votes

The efforts of state legislatures to enact new voting protections are in jeopardy if the Supreme Court fails to overturn the latest Ninth Circuit decision.

By Michael J. O’Neill
March 24, 2021

Do federal law and the U.S. Constitution prohibit states from enacting commonsense voting requirements designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process, apply to everyone, and impose no significant burden? The Supreme Court tackled this question several weeks ago when it heard oral arguments in a case entitled Brnovich v. Democrat National Committee.

Democrats are challenging the legality of two measures used by Arizona to ensure a free and fair electoral process. The first, known as the “out of precinct policy” requires individuals who vote in-person to cast their respective ballots in their designated election location.

The second policy limits who may handle mail ballots to the individual voter, his or her close family member, mail carriers, and electoral officials, a policy that effectively bans groups who target vulnerable populations from engaging in ballot harvesting. Democrats allege these policies have a disparate impact on minorities and both place an undue burden on the right to vote. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals agreed.

In opposing Arizona, Democrats ignore the fact that the vote-by-mail process contains opportunities for fraud not present in traditional, in-person voting. Ballots are sometimes delivered and left unsecured in mailboxes in apartment buildings, assisted living facilities, and other highly populated locations.

As such, opportunities to illicitly collect and complete these ballots abound. Furthermore, sophisticated political organizations train and deploy operatives to visit these communities and collect ballots, exerting a hefty influence on vulnerable voters in the process.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/24/scotus-set-to-rule-if-states-can-protect-the-integrity-of-their-votes/

[Fishrrman]

A timely and important case...

[Cyber Liberty]

"No standing."  Next?

[Sled Dog]

The requirement in Article 2, that the state legislators select the manner of the choosing of the electors makes it perfectly clear the federal government has no authority in the matter, except for certain narrow areas carved out by Constitutional Amendment...no racial discrimination against voters, no discrimination against female voters, voting age idiotically lowered to 18 years, and I believe no poll taxes.

So if any state wants to limit it's voter pool to anyone who has a job who can also show valid state issued ID and proof of current address and demonstrate english language literacy, that's their choice so long as they don't say (b)lacks or females or people under 25 couldn't vote.

And it does not matter what any federal law - OR COURT RULING - to the contrary says, this is what the Constitution says.

No, requiring that a voter be able to read, in English, is not a poll tax as wrong people have claimed.   

An illiterate society cannot remain a free society.