AAPI groups decry SCOTUS decision to weaken Voting Rights Act

ACLU

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld two electoral policies in Arizona that suppress voting rights for historically-marginalized communities.

"The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold anti-democratic, discriminatory voting laws in the state of Arizona are an affront to the ideals of American democracy," said Christine Chen, Executive Director of Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote.

"Laws, such as these, not only attempt to solve problems that do not exist, but intentionally target voters from historically-marginalized communities, making it harder for them to vote.” 

The Supreme Court’s decision July 1 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee occurs at a time time in our nation’s history when the Republican Party is trying to narrow the right to vote and weaken the Voting Rights Act. More than a dozen states have already enacted 22 restrictive voting laws. There are 61 restrictive voting bills still pending in 18 states, according to NBC.

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect and prevent discrimination at the polls like this, and did for many decades," said Chen. "These protections were weakened in 2013 in the Shelby v. Holder decision, and the Brnovich v. DNC decision has further mangled the Voting Rights of 1965 beyond recognition.

Justice Elena Kagan stressed in her dissent, the court’s decision comes “at a perilous moment for the Nation’s commitment to equal citizenship … in an era of voting-rights retrenchment — when too many states and localities are restricting access to voting in ways that will predictably deprive members of minority groups of equal access to the ballot box.”

The court rejected a lower court decision that ruled that two of Arizona's laws could violate the federal Voting Rights Act by adversely affected the voting rights of some people, especially voters of color.

SCOTUS upheld two voting practices in Arizona: the state trashes ballots that are provisional, the ones cast in the wrong precincts on Election Day; and Arizona limits who can return early ballots on behalf of voters to family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and election officials.

Justice Samuel Alito, --one of three activist conservatives Justices appointed by Donald Trump -- writing for the conservative majority arguing that the possible impact among racial or ethnic groups isn’t enough to make voting laws illegal. “The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote,” he wrote in upholding the Arizona restrictions.

"We know that, as we speak, voters who are AAPI, Black, Latino, Native American, and voters with disabilities, in particular, face barriers to making their voices heard at the polls," Chen continued.

The 2018 and 2020 elections showed the emergence of the fast-growing AAPI community in American politics, making an impact in local and national races. Voting advocates worry that the court's decision might dampen that movement.

“In the 2020 election, Asian American and Pacific Islander voters turned out in record numbers and made our voices heard, especially in states like Georgia and Texas," said Linda Ng, National President of the OCA -- Asian Pacific American Advocates. She added that the court's decision  "threatens our communities’ hard-earned progress and bolsters the coordinated assault on voting rights that we’re witnessing in state legislatures.

“Make no mistake: laws like the two Arizona provisions upheld by the Court today—which a lower court said were intentionally passed to harm voters of color—aim to erect new barriers and disenfranchise AAPIs,” Ng added.

Voting rights advocates believe the Arizona case may make it harder to halt the GOP's efforts in 17 other states to make it harder to vote.

In her dissent, Justice  Kagan wrote: “What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.” she was  joined by the court’s other two liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. 

"The need to pass comprehensive voting rights legislation at the federal level has never been more urgent," said APIAVote''s Chen. "We call on Congress to pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act right now in order to protect and expand democracy, and ensure that those who have historically been excluded from the civic process have their voices heard. There is no more time to wait.”