BREAKING: Supreme Court Makes Monumental Ruling For Voter Integrity

In a major victory for advocates of voter integrity — which is essentially everyone who isn’t a Democrat following the 2020 election mess — the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s updated measures banning practices like ballot harvesting are constitutional.



After the Republican majority passed integrity measures earlier this year that included the harvesting ban among other changes, left-wing groups sued using the same old, tired excuse that white conservatives are just trying to make it hard for ‘Democrats of color’ to cast a ballot. And never mind that line of reasoning is itself degrading and racist because it amounts to leftists saying minority voters are not smart enough to figure out the rules.

In any event, per The Epoch Times:

Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 this morning in a closely watched case with implications for future elections.

The court opinion split neatly along ideological and partisan lines with the 6 conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents voting to uphold the state law and the 3 liberal justices voting to strike it down.

The decision reverses a judgment issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and comes the week after the Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Georgia over the state’s new electoral integrity-promoting law claiming it amounts to so-called voter suppression. The state’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, said the U.S. Department of Justice’s suit was “legally and constitutionally dead wrong.”

Is inflation causing hardship at home?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned of all federal court districts, sitting en banc, “misunderstood and misapplied [Section 2] and … exceeded its authority in rejecting the District Court’s factual finding on the issue of legislative intent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s majority.

He added that Section 2 of the law bars voting rules that result “in a denial or abridgment of the right … to vote on account of race or color [or language-minority status],” further providing the result “is established” if a jurisdiction’s “political processes … are not equally open” to members of such a group “in that [they] have less opportunity … to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”

In February, the Biden administration — like the Trump administration before it — sent a letter to justices arguing that Arizona’s law did not violate or interfere with federal voting laws.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Gorsuch filed a separate concurring opinion, which Thomas joined.

A dissent was filed by Justice Elena Kagan, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

U.S. District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, appointed by former President Barack Obama, upheld Arizona’s law.

Initially, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Rayes’ ruling but the en banc court overturned it.

“Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding … out-of-precinct ballots, and … criminalization of the collection of another person’s ballot, have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters in Arizona, in violation of the ‘results test’ of Section 2 of the VRA,” Judge William A. Fletcher, a Clinton appointee, wrote.