SCOTUS ruling defending Arizona’s changes to election law mean ‘cleaner elections’

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) over a number of state election issues that were challenged by Democratic operatives and, as usual, painted as “racist” in nature.

The ruling, which Judicial Watch described as a huge victory for those who desire “cleaner elections” in the future, will have a massive impact on future elections in other states, as SCOTUS made clear in their July ruling that states have the right to correct potential election fraud possibilities before they happen, instead of tackling them after a major election, which usually results in partisan chaos. 

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the high court’s ruling was “a home run for cleaner elections, reaffirming that states may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within their own borders.”

Fitton added: “This new decision rightly rejects the race-baiting of the leftist partisans who pretend that neutral provisions to combat voter fraud (such as voter ID and bans on ballot harvesting) are presumptively racist.”

Not surprisingly, in the wake of the landmark ruling, most of the left-leaning mainstream media outlets — and high-profile Democrats — attacked. A columnist for The Washington Post said the ruling leaves “voters of color increasingly vulnerable to efforts to exclude them from our democracy.”

Judicial Watch Election Integrity Project Director Robert Popper appeared before congressional hearings not long after the high court’s ruling to correct the record over the “outrageous hyperbole” from the left as a result.

“One hears—and large news outlets dutifully report— that there is a ‘tsunami’ of legislation ‘restricting the right to vote,’ that states reforming their mail-in voting laws as COVID retreats are engaged in ‘voter suppression,’ and even that these actions represent ‘the new Jim Crow,” Popper said during the hearing.

He added: “These claims are preposterous. At best, they reveal a startling historical ignorance. The grandfather laws, absurd literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation and terroristic violence of the Jim Crow era have nothing whatever to do with, say, Ohio’s restriction of early voting from 35 to 29 days, or with limiting same-day registration.”

Only time will tell how the SCOTUS decision affects other states, but it’s clear that Democrats and the mainstream media won’t relent in their insistence on continuing to play the race card whenever possible.