Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Arizona Voting Law | MSNBC 1

Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Arizona Voting Law | MSNBC

 

NBC's Pete Williams reports on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold two provisions of Arizona's restrictive new voting law in a test of the Voting Rights Act.

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Arizona Voting Law | MSNBC

78 comments

    1. @walkinphoenix people who are undocumented (ILLEGAL) having an ID is crazy, but I know it happens. Some even get driver’s licenses in some states. Illegal people are a terrible drain on the US. We can’t afford all the extras CITIZENS are getting, let alone what illegals are getting and thousands are flooding through the boarder as we speak.

    2. @Leah Stewart a state ID and Driver’s license do not equal citizenship- they only show residency/ability to drive. Why do you think they drain?

    3. @walkinphoenix here’s one example…Their children are educated in this country. Most seem to forget that. It costs a lot for the system to educate a child and illegals are getting free education. I used to work with such kids in schools. Their plans are to get an education and return to their home country better educated and able to make a lot of money…and US citizens paid for it. I helped pay for it. I was never hateful to them. They can’t help that their parents brought them here, but we all pay for their education. That’s only one drain on the system. If you think about it, you will come up with more, such as medical bills which go unpaid, etc. Emergency rooms can’t refuse to help people.

      And will they be able to vote with that state ID?

    4. @walkinphoenix the point of these laws is to install barriers to prevent the ‘wrong type’ of person to vote. They are scraping at the margins. The thing is the T**** has clearly demonstrated once that they can win narrowly by actively pandering to white nationalist and fear mongering. The GOP is betting everything this is the winning strategy. The subs that support them make up a sizable and easily manipulated minority so maybe it will work out for them. They can always fall back on playing the victim like true subs.

  1. I like what one black man said: “It’s racist to presume minorities don’t know how, or can’t afford to get an ID.”

    1. @Keith DABEAR Nazing your point? Racist insurrection traitor con men like Trumpone and the GOPestapo will find a way to cheat. Their goal is to keep Americas government a white power supremacy.

    2. @Big Bubba Really? I just t pointed out what was done in 2011ish to try to stop people from voting. What does legislatures have to do with the people voting? People aren’t voting for the changes of laws. Only representatives who feel they can do whatever they want.

    3. @A Dash Of EntropyActually you can vote in all 50 states even if you are homeless. It can be difficult to do (along with many other things) but it can be done.

  2. HEY MSNBC, MAINTAINING INTEGRITY IS NOT “RESTRICTING.”
    YOU ARE FOREVER PLAYING YOUR GAMES WITH WORDS.

    1. Integrity is a buzz word for Democrats they don’t have any so when you talk about voter integrity they get TRIGGERED

    2. What’s with people and committing in all caps. Do you not understand grammar, or the English language?

  3. If this is “restrictive”, then how do you explain the requirement to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?

    1. @Brian Shrout I hear you talking, what are you calling ‘removed legal guns’. Link, proof?

    2. @Brian Shrout ccw is not impossible, you have to go thru training, certification, etc..

    3. @Stop Struggling Now
      By imposing exorbitant registration fees, processing fees, long waiting periods, not to mention running around filling out vast quantities of paperwork, you infringe upon a persons rights to keep and bear arms.
      Try doing that with some ones right to vote.

    4. @Trojansfan Nope. That is only an implied power, arrived at by inference, and in contradiction to the 9th and 10th amendments.

      Also I have read Heller, if a word salad can also be half-baked, that’s Heller. But that’s also most conservative legal opinions and ‘scholarship.’

    5. @carlos herrera I guess the idea behind a well regulated militia was one that is sponsored and enforced by the government? Like, the regulation comes down from the government? Is that what you think? That’s why you think we’re supposed to have firearms? Lol!!! Man they teach you people nothing

  4. So it’s widely recognized that these provisions of the Arizona law don’t violate the Voting Rights Act but when the Court announces what you already knew, you now wonder whether the decision weakens the Act? I guess that makes perfect sense . . . if you’re high.

    1. @Ryooken
      first
      can you please provide links to sources for your definitions of court packing, and the definition you are using when you say “Republicans ‘packed’ the court”

    2. @Jay Porter Again you need to stop making up facts in your head. If you actually bothered to read the court decision and the portion of the Voting Rights Act, instead of just going off on talking points, you would know what I am talking about. Since you don’t and I am not going to explain it further.

    3. @Jay Porter Jay maybe you should stop trolling. The adults are talking. Clearly you know nothing about this subject and are just seeking attention.

    4. @Jay Porter Just out of curiosity, are you claiming here you have reported my comments to you or are you still just trying to get attention?

    1. you can have a law that prevents fraud and prevents legal votes at the same time.
      the court ruled on this one so this one by definition is constitunal.

  5. If by “restrictive” you mean “in complete accordance with the Constitution which says that the States shall determine the manner of their elections” then yes, very “restrictive.”

    1. @Topher The11th What is the “it” that you’re talking about? I’m a little lost in the variety of responses to my post, so please forgive my confusion.

    2. @Growth is Freedom United Earth Enterprise Sincerely, I’m confused as to what you are saying: are you supportive of this Supreme Court decision, or opposed? And who is “y’all”? Because if “y’all” is people who are opposed to the decision, then “y’all” doesn’t include me; I support this Court decision. I support voter ID requirements.

    3. @Jonathan LeBlanc The “it” is Arizona’s law that prevents certain people from voting. I edited my comment.

    4. ​@Topher The11th Okay, then can you explain how you see the Arizona law as being at odds with the Constitution and the VRA? Also, do you find Delaware’s voting laws to be at odds with the Constitution?

    5. @Jonathan LeBlanc I’m not familiar with Delaware’s voting laws. The United States Constitution says that you cannot deny a person the right to vote because of their skin-color or what it calls “race”. The Voting Rights Act simply recognized the reality that rac’ist states, because they knew they could not get away with denying the vote to black people, would come up with schemes to get around with that. For instance, if they knew that a certain tax on voting would prevent 10,000 whites from voting but would prevent 100,000 blacks from voting, and they knew that 85,000 of those blacks and 8,000 of those whites would vote against rac’ist policies, they would enact that tax, because it would disqualify a tiny number of pro-rac’ist voters (some black, and some white) while disqualifying far higher numbers of anti-rac’ist voters (who were also some blacks and some whites). The intent was to rig elections in favor of pro-rac’ist candidates and policies WITHOUT having a law that says “Blacks can’t vote” because “Blacks can’t vote” would get thrown out by the Supreme Court. ANY OTHER MEANS to ACHIEVE what would be achieved by “Blacks can’t vote” (or, more likely in Arizona, “Hispanics can’t vote”) is just as illegal under the Voting Rights Act as saying “Hispanics can’t vote”. Any attempt by Arizona to change their electorate so that the Hispanics in the State are unable to elect officials who will bring in progressive policies is illegal. It’s all just part of an agenda to stop progressivism and return society to a medieval framework of owners and serfs.

  6. Restrictive? It’s restrictive to expect people to verify their identity when casting a ballot in an election?? Lmao. Yall are hilarious!

    1. @Ok N This is a statement from Trumps on Dep of Homeland sec. Chris Krebs…“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result,” the coordinating bodies on election infrastructure and security said in a joint statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). There have been dozens of cases thrown out of courts by Trump’s own justices that he nominated due to lack of evidence.

    2. @Chad They can double check. But if they double check using the same faulty measures, it doesn’t change the outcome.
      For example: A mail in ballot was filled out and sent in by the wrong person. They signed it. The machine signature verification was set to a lower setting for verification.
      They can run this ballot through the machine 100 times. It’s still going to pass.
      This is not a hypothetical example. This was the NV law in the 2020 election.

  7. “Restrictive” in the title is an opinion in the form of an adjective, and is not how reporting should be.

    The more you know…..

    1. @Dennis Roach In the old days, we would just run the Un-American thinkers out of town…

    2. weird I could have sworn regulations were also known as restrictions. Yes, actually I’m sure they were. So you are projecting because it does negatively portray Repugnantcans

    3. @Tee D And, the Demented Cretin party wants the term ‘restrictions’ to be PERCEIVED, in this case, by their Lefty-Loosey audience as meaning, ‘Those mean old selfish republicans are trying to “RESTRICT” certain PEOPLE/GROUPS from voting. [in reality, you people should be restricted from even using metal cutlery at the dinner-table]

    4. @GeorgeVanAken No one “voted for the AHCA”, dumdum, not unless they were part of the very small handful of citizens serving in the House and Senate to represent then interests if their constituents and nation as a whole.
      I imagine you don’t know the first thing about the bill.

      But, considering millions more Americans have coverage now than they did before, it does seem to have become more affordable for most. Not to mention that all patients- and especially the most vulnerable- came out with more, and desperately needed, protections than they did before- i.e. they cannot be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions or dropped for things like meeting “lifetime maximums” while the top execs of EVERY major health insurance company sat comfortably at various places in the too 50 wealthiest people in the whole country- all profits made from the desperate and ill- giving them sick incentives to deny lifesaving and life-changing treatment to people who have paid for their policies and got stiffed by medical billing systems DESIGNED and INTENDED to be impossible for a patient to understand in their moments of greatest emergency – and “coincidentally” these are the moments of most absurd cost.

      No bill was going to to make everyone happy, and it was meant to ben improve upon, but in the 10 YEARS since it passed the courts have upheld it and Republicans, despite typical empty promises, never ONCE introduced ANY bill to replace it.

      We pay 10XS MORE oer capita for a broken healthcare system than with worse overall patient outcomes than the very next nation on the list beneath us in costs.

      We do that because we are the only country on the planet that acts as if capitalism belongs in healthcare and should not be a public service.
      We are the only nation that does not agree that PROFITING at all, let alone MASSIVELY, off of the desperately ill and injured- even SICK children, to wring as much money from these people for the sole benefit of SHAREHOLDERS, is not one of the more immoral and evil things imaginable- especially in the richest country the world has ever known. We are also the ONLY country that does nit collectively bargain with drug manufacturers for affordable prescription prices- despite our tax dollars through the NIH actually HEAVILY subsidizing the creation of the drugs. There are no rules in outright price-gouging for life saving drugs that have been around nearly 100 years and letting Americans die for want of things like like INSULIN that is is $500 a vial here, and $2.50 in Canada or Mexico.

      And you this continues because a fair sized chunk of these massive profits from insurance companies and pharma companies are use to quite simply buy Republican politicians in ways that are corruption personified and not allowed anywhere else in the first world or even more developing worlds.

      I’m sorry the act didn’t help you, but I can tell by how you spoke you really have no idea how your health insurance works.

      But through no fault of my my own I became disabled at just 25, in 2009, on my WEDDING DAY, so I DO KNOW.

      And no matter your opinion on the politics the truth remains that we pay 10xs more in healthcare costs than any other nation, we get poorer overall outcomes for it, people die every day of treatable illness in the US for NO OTHER REASON than want if MONEY.

      And the ACA was great start, but any effort to improve the bill, or healthcare in general, for the American people, has met NOTHING but obstruction for DECADES by REPUBLICANS.

      If all the money going into the pockets of profiteers in the market or 8-9 FIGURE SALARIES for insurance CEOs actually went into HEALTHCARE inn this country we would have world class facilities and providers in every city and town in America.

      Ifnyiu stopped paying premiums, deductible, co-pays, uncovered fees, out-of-network fees, max out-of-pocket fees and extortion-rate drug prices and instead paid a FRACTION of that into a tax for universal healthcare- cutting out Wall St and and then profit vultures- just imagine what could be accomplished.

      Spending HALF what we currently do in healthcare would still be 5XS MORE than the next countries on thenlist- who all have more affordable and yea, BETTER healthcare and outcomes than we currently and give us the best system in the world.

      Because its not like in TV, American hospitals are failing financially and in infrastructure and in care. We are NOT #1. We have a few important centers of excellency, but they are out out if the reach of 95% of Americans.

  8. “Restrictive”
    “You keep using that word. I don’t think you know what it means” ~ Inigo Montoya

    1. Dems do things like that to blacks all the time since our countries inception, but they keep putting them in power!
      Unbelievable!!

    1. Illegal Voting has been going on through the Ages from both Sides, That can’t be your Mayor Argument to Limit Voting Rights

    2. @Kate Lopez Here’s how weak your argument is……Voting laws have always been in place and have restricted both sides, that can’t be your argument for not trying to limit vote harvesting and cheating.

  9. MSNBC doesn’t know the difference between “restrictive” and “constitutional” …that’s why thier ratings are tanking.

    1. @Stone Kingdom don’t tell people what they can’t say, your beliefs are meant to be kept to yourself. I’ll say Gods name, Jesus, the Pope’s, I’ll say everyone’s name in vain if I want to you. Keep your religious oppression out of here Karen.

    2. @Chad, it’s futile. The Reich wing has made it very clear, their feelings don’t care about the facts.

    3. @firebir11 And don’t forget what a g.d. liar Brian Williams has become….or always was !

    4. I don’t think their ratings can go any lower… it’s pretty hilarious when you look at the like to dislike ratio in videos like this and know that more right-wingers come by just to put their two cents in than the network’s actual fanbase lmao

  10. The law is “restrictive” yet all of these people are in favor of “common sense gun control”…

    1. @Joshua Phillips The job of the supreme court is to interpret the laws through the constitution, and by extension interpretation of said constitution.
      You can not have bias in your interpretation.
      If gun regulation laws are constitutional
      So are state regulations on voting

      Think of it this way

      If you can tell me i need a state issued piece of paper to own and carry a gun,
      I can tell you that you need a state issued piece of plastic in order to vote.

      Of course in reality the topic is probably alot more nuanced, but in the eyes of the law, we should keep nuance to a minimum as, it often results in inconsistencies.

    2. @NotAsphyxia you can require id but in this situation, you need more than “bc you regulate guns” as an excuse. Duh.

    3. @Joshua Phillips It’s not an excuse. It’s litterally how the law works. He just expressed it in a very rudimentary fashion. His point still holds true on logical grounds.

    4. @NotAsphyxia I didn’t say you can’t require id, I said that’s not a reason to implement voter id.

  11. They are called voting PROTECTIONS. SCOTUS ruled correctly today. Every other state should do the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.