NBC News: “Supreme Court justices asked skeptical questions Tuesday about Arizona election laws in a case that has emerged as an important test of the Voting Rights Act. The case is about whether two state laws violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: One blocks the counting of ballots cast in the wrong precinct, and another prohibits anyone other than a family member or caregiver from collecting and delivering a voter’s absentee ballot. On one side is the state of Arizona and Republicans, who want to keep the strict laws on the books and argue they prevent fraud. And on the other side are Democrats, who want the laws stricken and argue the rules prevent voters, particularly minorities, from accessing the ballot.”

“The voting restrictions are being fought in a state where Republicans have dominated local and national races for generations but, recently, Democrats are gaining traction and won a presidential contest and both U.S. Senate seats. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for voting laws in other states, too. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, two Republican appointees and potentially pivotal votes in the case, appeared to be wrestling with the arguments as they asked tough questions of lawyers on both sides.”

“A significant moment during virtual arguments came when Arizona GOP lawyer Michael Carvin connected the validity of the Republican-backed laws to the party’s interest in winning elections. When asked by Barrett what the state Republican Party’s interest in the case was, he replied: ‘Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election.'”