Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Catch up on the day's biggest business stories
Subscribe to Axios Closer for insights into the day’s business news and trends and why they matter
Stay on top of the latest market trends
Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.
Sports news worthy of your time
Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.
Tech news worthy of your time
Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.
Get the inside stories
Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a major voting rights case, setting up a clash over states’ handling of absentee ballots.
Why it matters: The court has already invalidated a key section of the Voting Rights Act, even before President Trump solidified and expanded its conservative majority, and is now poised to limit voting-rights enforcement again.
- The justices will not hear this case until after the 2020 election, but its stakes for future elections are significant.
- The case concerns voting rules in Arizona. The state does not count votes that are cast in the wrong precinct, and it prohibits "ballot harvesting" — people collecting other people’s absentee ballots.
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that because Arizona’s rules crack down on practices that disproportionately benefit minority voters, they’re illegal.
What they’re saying: Critics say those two rules are unconstitutional and also a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
- Rejecting out-of-precinct ballots disadvantages people of color because their assigned polling places change more often, the Democratic National Committee said in a brief to the high court.
- And ballot collection efforts have increased turnout in heavily Hispanic areas.
The other side: Arizona says it has simply adopted race-neutral rules that apply equally to every voter and every part of the state.
- The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from erecting barriers based on race, the state argues, but that’s not the same thing as requiring states to adopt the voting laws that do the most to increase minority turnout.
- The 9th Circuit’s ruling, the state argues in a brief, "would imperil nearly every voting rule and practice in the nation, since one can always hypothesize other voting regimes that would increase minority turnout."
The bottom line: Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's conservative majority weakened the Voting Rights Act long before Trump was elected, and will likely continue to give states wide latitude over their voting laws.