U.S. Supreme Court begins arguments in major voting rights case

By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday began hearing arguments on the legality of two Republican-backed voting restrictions in Arizona in a case that could further weaken the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that bars racial discrimination in voting.

The important voting rights case comes before the justices at a time when Republicans in numerous states are pursuing new restrictions after former President Donald Trump made claims of widespread fraud in the Nov. 3 election. Republican proponents of Arizona’s restrictions cite the need to combat voting fraud.

The justices are hearing arguments by teleconference in appeals by Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the state Republican Party of a lower court ruling that found that the voting restrictions at issue disproportionately burdened Black, Hispanic and Native American voters.

One of the measures made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. The other disqualified ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned.

Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. The practice, which critics call “ballot harvesting,” is legal in most states, with varying limitations. Voting rights advocates said voters sometimes inadvertently cast ballots at the wrong precinct, with the assigned polling place sometimes not the one closest to a voter’s home.

A broad ruling by the high court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump, endorsing the restrictions could impair the Voting Rights Act by making it harder to prove violations. Such a ruling could impact the 2022 mid-term elections in which Republicans are trying to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate from the Democrats.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

At issue is the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which bans any rule that results in voting discrimination “on account of race or color.” This provision has been the main tool used to show that voting curbs discriminate against minorities since the Supreme Court in 2013 gutted another section of the statute that determined which states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval to change voting laws.

The Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party sued to try to overturn Arizona’s restrictions. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found that the restrictions violated the Voting Rights Act, though they remained in effect for the Nov. 3 election.

The 9th Circuit also found that “false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud” were used to convince Arizona legislators to enact that restriction with discriminatory intent, violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on denying voting rights based on race.

Numerous courts rejected claims of voting fraud made in lawsuits by Trump and his allies seeking to overturn his loss to Biden. Eleven Republican U.S. senators including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ted Cruz submitted a brief to the Supreme Court supporting the Arizona restrictions.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Leaders of Venezuela’s bruised opposition to travel abroad to denounce ‘voting fraud’

Leaders of Venezuela's bruised opposition to travel abroad to denounce 'voting fraud'

By Alexandra Ulmer and Corina Pons

CARACAS (Reuters) – Key members of Venezuela’s opposition, divided and dispirited after losing gubernatorial elections over the weekend, will travel abroad to denounce what it says is a “fraudulent” voting system under leftist President Nicolas Maduro.

Congress president Julio Borges said in a press conference on Thursday that the opposition coalition will try to stir up international support, which could result in further sanctions against Maduro’s administration.

His unpopular government unexpectedly swept to victory in Sunday’s regional vote, pocketing 18 of 23 states in the midst of a debilitating economic crisis that has millions skipping meals as soaring inflation destroys salaries.

Polls had forecast the opposition easily beating the ruling socialists. Maduro’s rivals say a mix of dirty tricks, like moving hundreds of voting centers in opposition areas at the last minute and including the names of opposition politicians who lost in primaries on ballots, worked against them.

“We made a huge effort, we aimed to overcome all the obstacles, and what the government did was upgrade its fraud and its cheating,” said Borges, adding that politicians were due to travel to fellow Latin American countries and other supportive nations shortly.

“We have the full records of this electoral process and we’re going to submit them to various international bodies, so that … they can be audited,” added Borges, who did not provide further details on the trips.

OPPOSITION FRAYING

While the opposition first cried fraud, without providing proof, it later scaled back its accusations and is now focusing on the minerals-rich state of Bolivar where it says its losing candidate was robbed of decisive votes.

Maduro blasted his opponents as sore losers who cry fraud when convenient. On Thursday, he inaugurated Hector Rodriguez, a rising star in the Socialist Party, as governor of Miranda state in a ceremony filled with song and dance.

Opposition politicians have acknowledged that demoralization in their own ranks hurt turnout. Many opposition supporters are exhausted after four months of protests earlier this year and were loath to participate in what some saw as a rigged vote that would legitimize Maduro as a dictator.

They were even more downbeat after the vote, however, as it casts doubt on whether they can remove the ruling Socialist Party in next year’s presidential election.

“The government’s handling of (Sunday’s) vote suggests that it is not even willing to entertain anything close to free and fair presidential elections in 2018, even if it prompts growing international isolation, renewed unrest, and increased outward migration,” consultancy Eurasia wrote in a note to clients this week.

(Additional reporting by Anggy Polanco in San Cristobal; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)