Recently, attorneys for the Democratic National Committee asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that would jeopardize the existence of nearly every election integrity measure in America.
Their request specifically targets a pair of popular election laws in Arizona that have been on the books for years. The first law requires voters to vote in their correct precinct, and the second law bans partisan political operatives from collecting and delivering ballots, a dubious practice known as “ballot harvesting” that is either outlawed or limited in a large number of states. The case is Brnovich v. DNC, and Democrats’ ultimate goal is to weaponize a key part of the Voting Rights Act. They want to turn the law into a blank check for liberal judges to strike down any law they simply do not like. To hear the DNC tell it, these two common-sense regulations are Jim Crow reincarnate. The actual Jim Crow regime, the series of early and mid-20th century laws passed to deny black Americans the opportunity to vote, is an indelible stain on our national conscience. Many of the most pernicious Jim Crow laws, such as literacy tests or poll taxes, undeniably targeted and disenfranchised huge numbers of black voters. Congress took action to address these laws by passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Reasonable minds can disagree about the prevalence of voter fraud, but it’s indisputable that fraud occurs and can prove consequential in close elections. Just look to the 2018 election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District or the 2020 municipal elections in Paterson, New Jersey. As recent events demonstrate, all reasonable voters must be able to have full faith in the legitimacy of our elections. Turning the Voting Rights Act into a partisan legal ratchet to destroy even the least burdensome, non-discriminatory safeguards would be, to quote the late great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Perhaps Democrats would have a point if the laws actually depressed turnout or suppressed the vote. But they do not, not for minority voters or anyone else. If you listen closely, the Democratic National Committee does not argue that either law actually prevents anyone from voting — just that the laws may make it slightly less convenient for some voters to vote. Nor do they argue that minority voters are unable to comply with either law. After all, Arizona’s provisions do not make it harder for any voter to vote in the correct precinct or restrict anyone’s ability to mail in or return his or her ballot in-person. The harvesting ban even has exceptions for family members, caregivers, and others.
Arizona’s cardinal sin, according to Democrats, is that a slightly higher percentage of the very few voters (0.15% or 3,988 out of 2,661,497 total voters) who had ballots rejected for voting in the wrong precinct happened to be minority voters. Yet over 99.7% of minority voters voted in the correct precinct. In-precinct voting is a common election administration practice around the country that keeps lines shorter and ensures eligibility to participate in the specific races and questions that appear on a voter’s ballot. When it comes to Arizona’s ballot harvesting ban, Democrats lack even that thin statistical gruel and rely on bare assertions by political operatives who believe that minority voters would be more likely to give their ballot to a harvester if allowed. One can find small, over-determined discrepancies such as these in almost every imaginable voting regulation.
Finally, let’s not forget that Arizona, like many other states, shattered turnout records in the 2020 general election. If these laws were actually intended to suppress the vote, they are failing spectacularly. Granting the Democratic Party’s request would disrespect the legacy of the Civil Rights movement, unnecessarily crown the courts and the Department of Justice as un-elected election tsars, and leave states with fewer tools to effectively promote secure and efficient elections. The court should reject their request.
Justin Riemer is the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee; Christopher White is senior counsel at the Republican National Committee.
