The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in high-profile voting rights cases Tuesday morning, while an advertising campaign compared the judges to segregationists who opposed the civil rights movement.
The left-wing organization Demand Justice, which calls for reforms such as the court’s packaging, paid for an ad to be published starting Tuesday in the Washington, DC area, Politico reported, as the court considers cases dealing with the laws of Arizona against vote gathering. and vote outside one’s precinct. Democrats opposed the restrictions, claiming they are discriminatory against minority voters who depend on voting outside the precinct or having others turn in their absentee ballots for them.
THE SUPREME COURT COULD PUT NEW LIMITS ON VOTING RIGHT LAWSUITS
“In 1965, those who opposed the right to vote threw clubs on a bridge in Selma,” says a voiceover. “Today, they sit in the highest court.”
The ad specifically targets Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing him of leading a charge to oppose the efforts of the late Representative John Lewis, a civil rights icon who fought for equal rights.
“John Lewis marched and bled for the Voting Rights Act to become law,” says the voice-over at first, “but now John Roberts and his Supreme Court are ready to destroy his legacy.”
PRO-GOP GROUP TARGETS THE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE ON THE MASSIVE CHOICE OF THE HR 1 REFORM PROJECT
Demand Justice CEO Brian Fallon told Politico that one of his group’s goals with the announcement “is to draw attention to this case and perhaps embarrass Roberts and at least one other conservative of gutting what’s left. of the Electoral Rights Law “.
Republicans have been in favor of laws prohibiting ballot collection, the practice of allowing third parties unrelated to voters to collect and deliver absent ballots from individuals, due to election security concerns.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fallon said Demand Justice’s other goal is to urge Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Promotion Act. He also said that support for the bill is tied to support for ending filibuster because “any significant push to pass the John Lewis Act” would require removal of the filibuster to pass it.
The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the Arizona cases, Brnovich v. DNC and Republican Party of Arizona v. DNC, at 10 am by teleconference, which has been the court’s practice during the coronavirus pandemic.