Although the Biden administration will not be presenting oral arguments in the case or update a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Trump administration, it indicated to the justices and the public that it will leave the door open to adopting a more aggressive interpretation of the statute in the future.
Section 2 of the law forbids voting practices that result “in a denial or abridgment of the right … to vote on account of race or color [or language-minority status],” and provides that such a 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.”
WATCH: SPEAKER JOHNSON CALLS ON COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT TO RESIGN
“That text must be construed in light of Section 2’s constitutional context, as an exercise of Congress’s authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s ban on intentional discrimination,” the Trump administration’s brief filed last year stated.
WATCH GREAT ANALYSIS: THE ABSURDITY OF ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS
The filing comes as the litigants prepare to present oral arguments to the Supreme Court in the case on March 2.
A CRYING SHAME: PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTS FORCE USC TO CANCEL PRIMARY GRADUATION EVENT
The case includes two cases that the court consolidated. The first is Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC). The second is Arizona Republican Party v. DNC. The reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is at issue.
As The Epoch Times reported, the Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 2, 2020, to hear the challenge by the state of Arizona and Arizona Republicans to Democratic Party efforts to relax electoral integrity measures and throw open the state to ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting. This meant Arizona’s current ban on both practices remained in place for the Nov. 3, 2020, election.
REPUBLICAN SENATORS EXPOSE DARK SIDE OF 'FOOD DELIVERY' ECONOMICS
A U.S. district court upheld Arizona’s provisions, which were challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court but then at the en banc stage reversed, going against the recommendations of the federal government.
SEE TO BELIEVE: COMING SOON TO A KID'S DRAG SHOW NEAR YOU...(WATCH)
Arizona, like other states, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections.
In a letter to the justices, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler acknowledged that the previous administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Arizona and Republicans in the cases, “taking the position that neither Arizona measure violates the results test under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the court of appeals erred in overturning the district court’s finding of no intentional discrimination.”
HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S CONVICTION OVERTURNED IN NEW YORK! WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE DISGRACED MOVIE MOGUL?
The Biden administration holds that “although it does not disagree with the conclusion in that brief that neither Arizona measure violates Section 2’s results test, the Department doesn’t adhere to the framework for the application of Section 2 in vote-denial cases set forth in the brief.”
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
