UPDATED: The Roberts Strategy Lives, Right?
Arizona wins. This is a case I may want to read in detail--Alito writing for the Court, not sure about other opinions yet, since I've been writing on other matters. I thought this decision might come out later in the day.
For now I'll leave this with Jonathan Turley, who views this as a "big win for the states"--and, I suppose for the federalism embodied in our constitutional order. However, as I've maintained re the putative Roberts strategy, what this does is put the ball back in the States' court. The States need to act--the SCOTUS, rightly, isn't going to do the work that the Constitution delegates to the States.
As you read, bear in mind that Turley is probably tweeting as he reads. We'll be updating as more analysis comes out. Also, as context, the District Court--to whose opinion reference is made, upheld the AZ law, but the 9th Circuit--now reversed by the SCOTUS--overturned that court.
At this early point, it does seem to me that the Roberts strategy lives. Notice, too, embedded in commentary on the AZ case, the CA case, opinion by Roberts--CA can't force disclosure of political donors. Another big victory against the Left:
@JonathanTurley
We just got Brnovich. 6-3 opinion with Alito writing. The opinion is a big win for the states on election laws and undermines the new lawsuit from the Biden Administration against Georgia.
However, the Court punts on a clear or binding rule for future cases: "we think it prudent to make clear at the beginning that we decline in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules...that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots"
Yet, this [is] clearly a more narrow ruling than the one relied upon the Biden Administration of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ....
...Indeed, in her dissent, Justice Kagan declares that the "cramped reading" "undermines Section 2 and the right it provides."
Final decision is in: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. Another 6-3 ideological split with Roberts writing for the majority in saying California cannot force disclosure of political donors. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf …
Brnovich has a great deal that should worry the Biden Administration and, again, the timing of its filing may have been due to the expected countervailing opinion. It would have been even more difficult to file after such a narrowing interpretation...
Most notably, the Court rejects assumptions of racial motives even given controversial speeches: "We are more than satisfied that the District Court’s interpretation of the evidence is permissible... "
..."The spark for the debate over mail-in voting may well have been provided by one Senator’s enflamed partisanship, but partisan motives are not the same as racial motives ..."
...And while the District Court recognized that the “racially-tinged” video helped spur the debate about ballot collection, it found no evidence that the legislature as a whole was imbued with racial motives."
All in all, it looks good. But it's still up to the States in our revived federal election system. Lots of work to be done by the States before Election 2022--let alone Election 2024.
UPDATE 1: Margot Cleveland provides a very nice explanation of what went on within the opinion--what issues were being addressed and the history behind it:
SCOTUS Ruling Brings Clarity To Voting Rights Act, Upholds Ban On Ballot Harvesting
SCOTUS overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that Arizona law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, adding much-needed clarity to Section 2 claims .
I've edited these excerpts to focus on the essentials, but you can follow the link for Cleveland's excellent detailed analyis. IMO, the rejection of the "disparate impact model" is particularly noteworthy:
...
When originally passed in 1965, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibited a “standard, practice, or procedure” that “imposed or applied. . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” ...
...
... as Justice Alito explained, there have been a proliferation of Section 2 challenges in the lower courts to “generally applicable time, place, or manner voting rules.” But today’s decision in Brnovich represents the first time the Supreme Court has spoken on the question.
In Brnovich, the Court began by stressing that the majority believed “it prudent to make clear at the beginning” that it was declining to announce a test to govern all Voting Rights Section 2 claims, involving time, place, and manner provisions for voting. Instead, the court identified “certain guidepost” governing the analysis.
The majority then focused on Section 2(b)’s statutory language, stressing that the process must be “equally open” and “open” means “without restrictions as to who may participate.” ...
...
In addition to laying out what constituted appropriate consideration, the Court noted that many factors considered in voting-dilution cases were inapplicable to time, place, and manner challenges. And the majority expressly rejected “the disparate-impact model employed in Title VII and Fair Housing Act cases,” which consider if the rule is necessary and the only way to achieve the desired goal.
After detailing the above “guideposts,” the majority applied the consideration to the two challenged provisions. ...
“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting’” the Court explained. ...
Likewise, the Court upheld Arizona’s prohibition on ballot harvesting. ...
Arizona argued that “prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot, and preventing undue influence, voter fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation,” noting that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission recommended similar protections in its report on election reforms.
...
Also of note, the Court rejected the []view there must be evidence of fraud for a state to pass legislation to prevent fraud: ...
Finally, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that HB 2023 “was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.” Here, the majority stressed that partisan motives are not the same as racial motives. ...
While joining the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch “flagged” an issue not decided by the Court, namely whether the Voting Rights Act allows private organizations (such as the Democratic National Committee in this case,” to sue under Section 2. However, because the issue was not raised, Justice Gorsuch stressed, the Court did not address that open issue.
Justice Kagan filed a dissent, which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. That dissent focused almost entirely on the history necessitating the Voting Rights Act and ignored the question before the court: what Section 2 means.
... while the Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee addressed only Arizona’s legislation, the opinion represents a victory for state legislatures seeking to ensure voting integrity and establishes that no, these laws are not Jim Crow 2.0.
UPDATE 2: Paul Mirengoff:
Amy Howe at Scotusblog observes that the decision “will make it more difficult to contest election regulations under the Voting Rights Act.” That’s probably an understatement. The motion to dismiss Kristen Clarke’s suit challenging Georgia’s election law will all but write itself now.