In one dissent, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for four judges, said lawmakers were entitled to try to prevent potential fraud. “Given its interest in addressing its valid concerns of voter fraud,” he wrote, “Arizona was free to enact prophylactic measures even though no evidence of actual voter fraud was before the legislature.”The appeals court stayed its ruling, meaning that the restrictions will be in place for the November election.In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Mark Brnovich, the state’s attorney general, a Republican, argued that the measures were sensible and that the ballot collection law was needed to address the threat of election fraud.“The majority invalidated two commonplace election administration provisions used by Arizona and dozens of other states to prevent multiple voting, protect against voter intimidation, preserve the secrecy of the ballot and safeguard election integrity,” Mr. Brnovich wrote in his petition seeking review.In a second development on Friday, the court agreed to hear an appeal from more than two dozen multinational energy companies that object to a state court lawsuit brought by Baltimore seeking to hold them accountable for their role in changing the earth’s climate. The companies want to move the suit to federal courtThe case, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189, is one of more than a dozen state and local governments around the nation have filed seeking compensation for what they said were injuries caused by the energy companies’ conduct.In its suit, Baltimore said the companies’ “production, promotion and marketing of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products and their championing of antiscience campaigns” harmed the city, which “is particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise and flooding.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-climate-change.html
