The Court v. the Voters by Joshua A. Douglas

Author:Joshua A. Douglas [Douglas, Joshua A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Beacon Press
Published: 2024-10-15T00:00:00+00:00

CHAPTER 8

AN ACTIVIST COURT

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)

JUSTICE APPOINTED BY

MAJORITY Alito, Samuel A., Jr.

(authored majority opinion) Bush, George W. (R)

Roberts, John G., Jr. (chief justice) Bush, George W. (R)

Thomas, Clarence

(joined Gorsuch’s concurrence) Bush, George H. W. (R)

Gorsuch, Neil M.

(authored concurring opinion) Trump, Donald (R)

Kavanaugh, Brett M. Trump, Donald (R)

Barrett, Amy Coney Trump, Donald (R)

DISSENT Kagan, Elena

(authored dissent) Obama, Barack (D)

Breyer, Stephen G. Clinton, Bill (D)

Sotomayor, Sonia Obama, Barack (D)

Arizona’s presidential primary in 2016 was a disaster. On March 22, many voters left work to go to the polls only to find astonishingly long lines. Some voters, especially in areas with a high population of minority individuals, waited for more than five hours and didn’t cast their ballots until after midnight.1 The problems occurred mostly in Maricopa County, the state’s largest county and home to Phoenix. The main culprit was the county’s decision to cut the number of polling places from more than 400 in the 2008 primary to fewer than 60 in 2016.2 The stated goal was to reduce costs, but voters suffered the consequences. Many voters made it to the front of the line only to find out they were mistakenly registered as independents, meaning they couldn’t vote in the Republican or Democratic presidential primaries. One voter recounted that their five-hour wait to vote was “made even more unpleasant and upsetting because the one bathroom at the voter center was overwhelmed and leaked raw sewage onto the sidewalk and the adjacent grass.”3 As an Arizona newspaper put it on the day after the election, “Maricopa County voters woke up with an election hangover Wednesday morning, and it wasn’t pretty.”4 Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton called it a “fiasco” and asked the Department of Justice to investigate. Arizona governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, said it was “unacceptable.”5 The Arizona debacle made national news, offering a clear example of how cuts to voting opportunities can have tangible effects, especially on minority communities.6

Prior to 2013, Maricopa County would not have been allowed to reduce the number of polling sites from 400 to 60 without first proving the change would not harm minority voters. That’s because Arizona, with a long history of voter suppression, was a “covered jurisdiction” under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Recall that under Section 5, jurisdictions with a record of discrimination had to seek preclearance for any voting changes by demonstrating that the new election rule would not make minority voters worse off. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County in 2013, however, Arizona was freed of this preclearance requirement. The state and its subdivisions could make any changes they wanted to the voting process without first seeking federal approval.

Maricopa County therefore did not need to seek preclearance before it reduced the number of polling places for the 2016 primary. After the disaster, the head of Maricopa County’s elections, Helen Purcell, promised more polling sites for subsequent elections, but voters denied her another term in November 2016, terminating her twenty-eight years in the office.7

THE CHALLENGE TO

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.