Brief summary:
Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting doesn’t violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in a closely watched case with implications for future elections.
The court opinion split neatly along ideological and partisan lines, with the six conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents voting to uphold the state rules and the three liberal justices nominated by Democratic presidents voting to strike them down.
We're winning this war, one battle at a time, anons. NCSWIC
Brief summary: Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting doesn’t violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in a closely watched case with implications for future elections. The court opinion split neatly along ideological and partisan lines, with the six conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents voting to uphold the state rules and the three liberal justices nominated by Democratic presidents voting to strike them down.
We're winning this war, one battle at a time, anons. NCSWIC