Get 40% Off
👀 👁 🧿 All eyes on Biogen, up +4,56% after posting earnings. Our AI picked it in March 2024.
Which stocks will surge next?
Unlock AI-picked Stocks

Supreme Court rejects Michigan straight-ticket voting appeal

Published 09/09/2016, 12:07 PM
Updated 09/09/2016, 12:07 PM
© Reuters. A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid by Michigan to reinstate its Republican-backed ban on straight-ticket voting for the Nov. 8 general election.

The justices left in place a decision by a federal district judge in Michigan who in July suspended a law that abolished straight-ticket voting, the practice of using one mark to vote for all candidates from one party, finding that it would disproportionately affect black voters.

The 6th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that finding last month, prompting the state to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.

Two conservative justices on the eight-member court, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, voted to grant the request, the brief order said.

The Michigan law, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor, was one of numerous voting measures passed at the state level that put new restrictions on voting. These measures also include stricter voter-identification laws and reduction of early-voting periods before election day.

Proponents of the law, enacted in January, have said most states have moved away from a straight-ticket voting option. Removing the option forces voters to study candidates and encourages voters to make decisions based on criteria other than party affiliation, they said.

Opponents say voting restrictions are aimed at reducing turnout of minorities, who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain in July granted a preliminary injunction sought by civil rights and labor groups who sued Michigan's Secretary of State Ruth Johnson and Attorney General Bill Schuette. The judge said elimination of straight-ticket voting would be a burden on voting rights and cause long wait times at polls.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

After Friday's decision, Schuette said, “It is my duty to defend Michigan’s laws, in this case a law that stands in 40 other states. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and I will respect that decision.”

The case is one of several voting disputes being litigated ahead of the election and is the second emergency application the Supreme Court has recently been asked to handle. On Aug. 31, the court rejected a bid by North Carolina to reinstate for November’s elections several voting restrictions, including a requirement that people show identification at the polls.

The high court is short one justice following the death of conservative Antonin Scalia in February. As a result the court is evenly split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.