F. Peter Brown: The DNC Wants the Supreme Court to Make Voter Fraud Easier in Arizona
A recent ad produced by progressive group Demand Justice compares conservative members of the Supreme Court to segregationists.
The ad states, “In 1965, opponents of voting rights swung clubs on a bridge in Selma. Today, they sit on the highest court.”
The Supreme Court has recently heard arguments for two Arizona cases that are being challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts penned a majority opinion that dealt with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The case, Shelby County v. Holder, had the effect of “effectively gutting” Section 5 of the act, according to CNN.
Section 5 of the law requires that states with a history of discrimination must first gain the approval of the federal government or the courts before enacting new voting laws.
Now progressives have turned to Section 2 of the law to seek changes.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. The act has done a great deal of good, but attempts by progressives to use the law unjustly are now appearing before the Supreme Court.
How did the law do good? Black voter turnout in Mississippi, for example, increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.
Unfortunately, while the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted with good intentions, progressives are now seeking to use it to sweep away anti-voter fraud laws in the name of racial discrimination.
Ariane de Vogue, a CNN Supreme Court reporter, wrote:
“Brnovich v. DNC concerns a challenge brought by the Democratic National Committee against two provisions of an Arizona law. The first is a requirement that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another concerns the so called ‘ballot-collection law’ that permits only certain persons — family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials — to handle another person’s completed ballot.”
These laws are common ways some states have used to target voter fraud. It would be tragic if these common-sense laws were overturned by the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, due to the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, laws preventing voter fraud are more likely to be upheld.
Conservative members of the Supreme Court are not modern-day segregationists but rather guardians of anti-fraud voter laws.
Hopefully, the conservative members of the court don’t back down in the wake of being called segregationists.
The court should be more concerned with preserving justice than listening to the opinions of progressives.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.