LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
July 2, 2021 (American Thinker) – On July 1, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that Arizona did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it required in-person voting to take place in the precinct to which the voter is assigned and limited collection of early-voting ballots to the U.S. Postal Service, election officials, family members, household members, and caregivers.
In overturning a Ninth Circuit en banc decision rejecting Arizona’s voting requirements, Justice Sam Alito, for — let it be said — the six justices appointed by Republican presidents, recognized the legitimate interests of a state in preventing fraud and intimidation or pressure on voters. Justice Alito noted that fraud does not have to be shown before a state can act to take legitimate measures to prevent fraud. He also indicated that “disparate impact” must be shown to be significant before overturning a state’s voting laws.
On the matter of “disparate impact,” Justice Alito pointed to the use of statistics to mislead, rather than to inform. He observed that the Ninth Circuit found that twice as many
The remainder of this article is available in its entirety at LifeSite News
The views expressed in this news alert by the author do not directly represent that of The Official Street Preachers or its editors
