- Well, joining us now isZack Smith, legal fellow

in the Meese Center forLegal and Judicial Studies

at the Heritage Foundation.Zack, thanks for being with us.

- Of course. Thank youso much for having me on.

- Well, that was quite the rundown.

I'm sure you're familiar with it,

but the Supreme Court's decision overturns

the Ninth Circuit'sruling that disregarding

provisional ballots submittedat the wrong precinct,

and the law making it a felony

to submit another person's ballot,

violate Section Two ofthe Voting Rights Act.

What does Section Two say?Help us understand this.

- Yeah, so the Voting Rights Act,

specifically, Section Twoof the Voting Rights Act,

is intended to make sure thateveryone has an open and fair

opportunity to participatein the political process.

And so, obviously Arizona'slaw had been challenged.

Opponents of the law saidit had a disparate impact

on Black and minority voters.

But the court set looked at the data,

look at the information,looked at the legal theories,

and said that Arizona's requirement

that voters cast their ballotin their assigned precinct

on Election Day, and itsprohibition on vote trafficking,

did not violate either Section Two

of the Voting Rights Act,

or, with respect to thevote trafficking provision,

also did not violate the 15th Amendment.

And legally speaking, I thinkthat's the correct decision

and it's really an encouraging one,

as many states grapple withthese very difficult issues.

- So the voting restrictions from Arizona

are mired in controversy. Should they be?

- No, I don't think so.

As the court explainedvery well, in its opinion,

these are common sense restrictions,

that when you view them in the totality

of the electoral scheme in Arizona,

really Arizona has made voting very easy.

Just because voting maynot be as convenient

as a particular voter would like,

or there may be incidentalburdens to voting,

does not mean that Arizonais trying to discriminate

against certain voters,

or that they've actedinappropriately or illegally

under either the relevantlaws, or the Constitution.

And so, I think this isan important decision,

and one that, again,will be very important,

as many other states grapplewith these very same issues.

- Zach, what does this mean, now,

for voting rights in Arizona?

And could it influencethe nation, possibly?

- Well, it absolutelycould influence the nation.

You know, I think itmeans that Arizona's law

that they enacted to protecttheir electoral process

will remain in place,which is encouraging.

And then it also hasimportant ramifications

for the recent lawsuit thatthe Department of Justice

filed against the state of Georgia.

And in fact, one of theallegations that the bind DOJ

made against the state of Georgia,

was that its out-of-precinct policy,

which was similar to Arizona's,

discriminated againstBlack and minority voters.

But in light of today's decision

in Abramovich versus the DNC,

it seems likely that theDepartment of Justice

will either have to dismiss,or revise, its complaint

in its lawsuit against Georgia.

- Yeah, so you probablyalready touched on this,

but just to elaborate,Democrats point to voting laws,

like the one in Arizona,as evidence for the need

for a federal election law overhaul.

Do laws like this give themammunition for their cause?

- Well, they shouldn't.

Again, these are common sense measures,

designed to help protect the integrity

of the electoral process.

And as Justice Alito madeclear in his opinion today,

the state has a legitimate interest

in preventing anddetecting election fraud.

And that's exactly whatArizona, and these other states,

are trying to do with thesenew election related measures.

- Right. Zack, thanks somuch for being with us today

on "Faith Nation" and have agreat Fourth. God bless you.

- Of course, have a happy 4th of July.