Trump supporters gather outside the Maricopa County Elections Department office in Phoenix, Arizona, Nov. 6, 2020.
Last Wednesday, March 3, the case against the Arizona Democratic National Committee (DNC) by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, with all parties actively awaiting the outcome. The case is seen as a national example or impacting the legislative rights of state capitals across the United States regarding the integrity of elections.
Currently, there are two election lawsuits in Arizona that have made their way through all levels of the judicial system and into the Supreme Court. Plaintiff Bruno Vicki, state Republicans and related support groups are hoping to uphold the state’s two election laws through the Supreme Court and use the lawsuits as a national example to prevent further general election fraud.
Democratic Caucus Wants to Overturn Arizona Law
The first election lawsuit is related to an Arizona state law that “prohibits the counting of ballots from being read out of precinct” (Out of Precinct Policy). This law originally required voters to cast their ballots in designated precincts. However, in 2016, the state’s DNC tried to overturn the law on the grounds that it “discriminates against minorities” and was struck down by the district court.
The court also found after an investigation that the vast majority of minorities voted in the correct precincts, so the DNC’s allegations were not valid. But the state’s DNC didn’t give up, taking the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At that Time, a judge appointed by Clinton ruled that the state’s law was discriminatory in intent.
Now, Brunovich is taking the case to the Supreme Court, along with the state DNC. He said in court that the case is an attempt by liberals to challenge state law, that the state legislature has the power to enact common sense election laws, and that if those laws are overturned by unelected officials based on preferences, it could cause electoral chaos. He hopes the Supreme Court will uphold the state law and create a set of common sense regulations for future elections in the United States.
The election watchdog groups Election Integrity Project of Arizona (EIPAz) and Election Integrity Project of California (EIPCa) have also filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Brunovich’s lawsuit against the Arizona DNC with evidence. Arizona DNC.
Another election lawsuit relates to who has the right to process mail-in ballots on behalf of voters. Arizona state election law originally provided that mail-in ballots for voters in the state could only be submitted by the voter’s designated next of kin, mail carrier, or election official. In particular, it prohibited the mass collection of voters’ mail-in ballots by third parties, especially for vulnerable groups and groups attempting to engage in ballot trafficking (vote collection).
In response, the Arizona DNC has again launched a challenge to the law on the grounds that it “discriminates against minorities,” claiming that minorities and disadvantaged groups in the state may not be able to receive or send mail-in ballots and need third-party help to collect them. Arizona Republicans have also taken the case and the state DNC to the Supreme Court.
Preventing Voters from Being Disenfranchised
Election watchdog groups EIPAz and EIPCa argue that Arizona’s state election law requires protections that prevent voters from being disenfranchised. By wanting to remove these protections, the Democrats are trying to capitalize on the votes of vulnerable populations and minorities. In doing so, it would also cause voters to lose confidence in the fairness and accuracy of the election process.
Citing California as an example, the organization said that the lack of important protections for the mail-in ballot implementation process in California has resulted in a large number of ballots being collected illegally for the 2018 and 2020 elections. In short, the lack of reasonable statutory protections has done nothing but make the election system more vulnerable to fraud.
“We hope the (Supreme) Court will do the right thing and rule that all states, including Arizona, have the right to put in place reasonable protections to ensure the integrity of the election system.” Linda Paine, president of EIPCa, said, “The inherent risks associated with the widespread use of mail-in ballots require common-sense protections. States have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that every legally cast ballot is handled in a fair, honest and transparent manner to protect citizens from unscrupulous entities that seek to adversely influence elections.”
She added that Arizona’s policy applies to all other states. “Other states must avoid problems with their election systems like those that have plagued California for years. If Arizona’s law is overturned, states will lack the ability to adequately protect the vote.”
As early as June of this year, the Supreme Court may announce the outcome of its ruling in the election lawsuit against Arizona.
Recent Comments