The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case challenging voter restrictions in Arizona that could have national implications.
In the case, Democrats are challenging two Republican-passed voting measures in Arizona. One requires ballots to be tossed out if they are cast in the wrong precinct, and the other bans ballot collection by third parties. Critics sometimes call this practice “ballot harvesting,” but supporters say it’s useful for voters who live in remote areas far from polling locations or drop boxes.
When a lawyer defending the Arizona laws was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett why Republicans are interested in the restrictions, he said it was to be more competitive with Democrats in the state.
“It puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” Michael Carvin, the lawyer said. “Politics is a zero sum game.”
His comments were criticized as revealing that the voting restrictions were motivated by partisanship and not election security. Or, as people like Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the center-right news outlet Bulwark, and Brennan Center vice president of democracy Wendy Weiser suggested, saying “the quiet part out loud.”
Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement that Democrats were “trying to manipulate a key part of the Voting Rights Act,” the 1965 civil rights legislation that protects the voting rights of minorities, and she called on the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.
However, voting rights advocates worry that if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona’s voting restrictions, it could make it harder to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting procedures, said Davin Rosborough, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project.
“I think the voting rights community has been particularly concerned about the outcome beyond the particular laws at issue, that the Supreme Court was going to adopt a very draconian, severe standard that would make it very hard to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to pursue racial discrimination claims,” Rosborough said.
He described the law as an “incredibly important tool that we use in challenging laws that have really severe racial discriminatory impact” and said it is unfortunate voting rights have become partisan.
Voting rights haven’t always been this partisan, though. The Voting Rights Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. Amendments passed when portions of the law were set to expire were signed by Republican presidents including Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.