Today the Supreme Court of the United States ended its 2020-2021 term by issuing its last two opinions in cases that the Center for Equal Opportunity joined in filing amicus briefs. I am happy to report that in both cases—one involving voting rights and the other privacy for donors to non-profit organizations—the Supreme Court sided with CEO!
In the voting rights case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court considered both whether an Arizona policy which rejects ballots outside of a voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and whether Arizona’s law which permits only certain persons such as household members and mail carriers to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 or the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.
The DNC challenge claimed that these measures would have a “disparate impact” on certain racial minorities and thereby, trigger a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982. The 1982 amendments were controversial from their enactment, largely because they changed the standard of discrimination from one that required intent to discriminate to one that required only a showing that the measure had a disproportionate effect. The DNC argued that what were facially neutral election security measures put in place in 2013 were unlawful because they would disproportionately harm American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters.
In upholding the Arizona measures, and reversing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion by a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court’s majority noted:
“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. And small disparities should not be artificially magnified.”
This point was exactly the one CEO’s brief made.
Although there is criticism in the wake of this decision that the Supreme Court has now eviscerated the VRA, protections against intentional discrimination in voting and the ability of plaintiffs to provide evidence that a measure overwhelmingly disadvantages minority voters may still be brought.
In the case Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta, the Court considered a challenge to California’s forced donor disclosure requirement. While not directly related to civil rights, CEO nonetheless submitted a brief in support of the challengers in this case because of its potential to make it very difficult for nonprofits like CEO that challenge progressive shibboleths to survive.
In explaining the Court’s reversal of the Ninth Circuit for the second time today in another 6-to-3 vote, Chief Justice Roberts sums up this sentiment nicely:
“The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum….”
You can find our briefs HERE for Brnovich and HERE for Bonta. The Supreme Court opinions are available HERE for Brnovich and HERE for Bonta.
These two Supreme Court victories today are welcome news for our country as we celebrate her independence this weekend. Thank you for your continued support of our work, and I hope everyone has a wonderful 4th of July!
Warm Regards,
Devon Westhill
President and General Counsel
Center for Equal Opportunity
Related posts:
TESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT
50th anniversary of the Voting Rights ActThe Right Way to Interpret the Voting Rights Act
Should the feds require U.S. ballots to be printed in foreign languages?