Mark Brnovich vs. Jaime Harrison

This past week, the US Supreme Court ruled on the Brnovich v. DNC lawsuit. Predictably, they ruled that the law, signed into law in 2016, didn't infringe on voters' rights. After the ruling, AZ AG Mark Brnovich issued a statement, saying "Today is a win for election integrity safeguards in Arizona and across the country. Fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic and they start with rational laws that protect both the right to vote and the accuracy of the results."

DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison wrote this op-ed, which didn't celebrate the ruling. Chairman Harrison said "On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled on Brnovich v. DNC and once again set back voting rights in the United States. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee sued the state of Arizona over two restrictive voting laws. One law automatically tossed out votes that were cast in the wrong precinct. The other law made third-party ballot collection, a practice that communities of color rely on in Arizona, illegal. Together, the laws made voting disproportionately harder for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous voters." Saying that a bill makes an activity difficult doesn't make the activity difficult. Proving that allegation requires proof. That proof was obliterated in the opening paragraph of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion:

Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county. These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted. Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot—either before or after it has been completed.

Alito's opinion continues, saying this:

The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, alleging that both the State’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and disparate effect on the State’s American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens in violation of §2 of the VRA. Additionally, they alleged that the ballot-collection restriction was “enacted with discriminatory intent” and thus violated both §2 of the VRA and the Fifteenth Amendment. The District Court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no “meaningfully disparate impact” on minority voters’ opportunities to elect representatives of their choice. Turning to the ballot-collection restriction, the court found that it was unlikely to cause “a meaningful inequality” in minority voters’ electoral opportunities and that it had not been enacted with discriminatory intent.

In short, the DNC failed to provide proof that substantiated their allegations. The DNC's tactics work in the court of public opinion. They don't work in real courts. That's why the Biden DOJ is likely to lose their voting rights lawsuit against Georgia.