WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Rick Scott, (R-Fla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) today submitted a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the petitioners in the case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and in defense of laws that combat election fraud.
The amicus brief argues that the Voting Rights Act does not prevent states from enacting neutral election integrity measures like Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting, or other measures such as in-precinct voting requirements, voter ID requirements, election observer zones, and straight-ticket voting.
The full text of the amicus brief may be viewed here. Excerpts are below.
“‘The risk of voter fraud [is] real.’ As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, States have the authority and responsibility to ensure the integrity of their elections. These measures do not deny anyone the equal ‘opportunity’ to vote ‘on account of race or color.’ […]
“In the past decade, plaintiffs have pushed an aggressive Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act theory seeking to invalidate voting laws regulating absentee voting, precinct voting, early voting, voter identification, election observer zones, voter registration, durational residency, and straight-ticket voting. […]
“In the past few years, many recommended election-integrity regulations–which impose no more than ‘the usual burdens of voting,’–have been challenged in a wave of novel Voting Rights Act litigation. […]
“Were this Court to adopt the sweeping interpretation […] advocated by Respondents, these recommended laws and other neutral time, place, and manner voting laws would be put in grave danger across the country.”
MARK BRNOVICH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,Petitioners,v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents.
_____________
ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL.,Petitioners,v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents.
