Voting Restrictions Upheld by the Supreme Court

Hill Street Studios

The Supreme Court recently granted Alabama the ability to reimpose requirements for voting after a Federal District Court Judge had sided with plaintiffs in favor of curbside voting. The efforts pushing for relaxed voting laws and regulations are a direct result of the current state of the world due to COVID-19.

The Alabama Secretary of State, John Merrill, had been the defendant on behalf of the State of Alabama seeking to maintain requirements for absentee ballots since the fear of voter fraud has been a prominent conservative position against relaxed voting laws. However, the plaintiffs argued that it was unethical to force elderly voters to put themselves at risk to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Alabama law dictates that a notary or two witnesses must sign absentee ballots, and it must be accompanied by a copy of the voter's photo ID. Furthermore, there is a de facto ban on curbside voting in Alabama, so the plaintiff's argued that it would be an unfair burden to follow the stiff regulations during the current health crisis.

The case was first heard by Abdul K. Kallon of the Federal District Court in Birmingham, AL, and he decided to block the official's continuation of ID requirements for voters 65 years and older. The senior population has been the most disproportionately affected demographic from COVID-19, so continued restrictions would place an additional burden on elder voters hoping to vote as well as preserving their health.

Part of Kallon's reasoning was reliant upon Alabama law, which already offered an exception to the ID requirement providing the entity suffered a physical infirmity that rendered them unable to access their polling place to voters who are age 65 or older. The expected appeal was sent to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, where the decision was again in favor of the expanding voting privileges. The appeal was then decided by a vote of 5-4 in the Supreme Court thanks to the conservative bloc judges and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Of course, we are entering a very important Senate and Presidential election season, but there have been a significant amount of cases surrounding the prospect of mail-in voting or relaxation of absentee ballot rules due to society's response to the pandemic. Early last month, multiple cases involving absentee ballot restrictions were litigated statewide in courts throughout Texas over essentially the same issues discussed in the Alabama case.

District Judge Tim Sulak of Travis County, TX sided with plaintiffs advocating that characteristics, which make one more vulnerable to the coronavirus, should be considered a disability, thus denoting a valid reason for receiving mail-in ballots. However, even though a panel of the 14th Court of Appeals of Texas let the ruling stand, the Supreme Court of Texas deemed that a lack of immunity to the virus did not meet the qualifications necessitating a mail-in ballot. Their main argument centered around the idea that individuals would be the best arbiter of their own well-being.

However, merely checking the box beside "disability" on the application for a mail-in ballot would be all the action necessary to receive such a ballot. The Texas Supreme Court asserted that ​a properly filled out ballot would be all that is necessary since officials cannot reject the voter request.

Refusals to accommodating the widespread usage of mail-in ballots have surged due to heightened scrutiny from conservative and GOP leaders who are wary of voter fraud. This can be directly attributed to President Donald Trump's personal allegation of the heightened possibility of fraud presented by mail-in ballots. In a recent tweet, he condoned absentee ballots. However, he very explicitly expressed his distrust of mail-in voting.

Conservative Institute, the Heritage Foundation, has cited a noticeable amount of convictions for voter fraud in the U.S. The entity has tallied nearly 1300 cases within the four years that they kept score. Further tempering the flames of skepticism was the recent occurrence of voter fraud in New Jersey earlier this year during their City Council elections –– two councilmen and two citizens had charges filed against them. Subsequent to the four charges, 19% of the ballots were cast out during the tally. Of course, Trump did not hesitate to indicate that the above validated his claims about potential fraud.

The Alabama voting decision comes before the crucial election over the contested U.S. Alabama Senate seat that former Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is vying for against former Auburn football coach, Tommy Tuberville. Trump has endorsed Tuberville since Jeff Sessions' relationship soured after Sessions' resignation. The prior Congressman resigned from the position of Attorney General at Trump's request. The winner of the GOP runoff will face Sen. Doug Jones, possibly the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent slot up for reelection.

Coincidentally, Texas also has a very important U.S. Senate election this Nov., which also involves the incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. The Democratic National Committee, or DNC, has been very openly persistent to flip a Senate seat blue in Texas, evidenced after Beto O'Rourke's loss to Sen. Ted Cruz. Obviously, these court cases, which involve voting rights, are very politically valuable.

However, politics aside, these decisions will be subject to public scrutiny in the future as a result of the very pronounced effects of the pandemic.