<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Aaj TV English News - World</title>
    <link>https://english.aaj.tv/</link>
    <description>Aaj TV English</description>
    <language>en-Us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright 2026</copyright>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 19:05:25 +0500</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 19:05:25 +0500</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    <item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
      <title>US Supreme Court upholds controversial voting restrictions
</title>
      <link>https://english.aaj.tv/news/30262045/</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld controversial Arizona laws that restrict how ballots can be cast, a decision that could have lasting impact on the voting rights of minorities.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" with the ruling, which raises questions about the potential success of future challenges against such laws at a time when Republican state legislatures are moving to enact restrictions that critics warn are intended to suppress the vote.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"The attack we are seeing today makes clearer than ever that additional laws are needed to safeguard that beating heart of our democracy," Biden said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The decision was 6-3, with the court's three liberal justices in dissent.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The case, Brnovich vs Democratic National Committee, involves two Republican-backed electoral laws that were seen as a key test of the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act, which sought in part to prevent discrimination against Black voters.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One requires citizens who vote on election day to cast ballots in the precinct in which they live, while another makes it a felony for advocates like union representatives to collect and deposit voters' ballots, a process critics call ballot harvesting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Democrats filed suit, arguing that such provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A federal appeals court ruled last year that the laws would adversely impact African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, who for socioeconomic reasons are less able to travel to polling stations.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Supporters of the state laws argued in the Supreme Court, where conservative-leaning justices have a 6-3 majority, that the laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that every American faces some voting burden and that "mere inconvenience" is not enough to demonstrate a violation of Section 2.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The impact of the laws, he argued, was negligible.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"The mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote," Alito wrote. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"The size of any disparity matters."&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the decision "undermines" the Voting Rights Act and its twin premises of democracy and racial equality.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten -- in order to weaken -- a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses," Kagan wrote.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;   **- 'Severe damage' -**
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The decision is the second blow against the Voting Rights Act in under a decade. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a part of the act which had required states with a history of voter discrimination to first receive a green light from the federal authorities before changing any voting rules.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Biden led a chorus of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, left-leaning political action committees, and the American Civil Liberties Union.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure," the president said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;"We should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them."&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The outcome of the latest case is seen as particularly important for the Democratic Party, which receives more support from minority voters than Republicans do.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;African Americans, for example, voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Biden in the November election, which former president Donald Trump falsely claimed was marred by voter fraud.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Three Trump nominees were confirmed to the nine-member high bench, and they sided with the voting restrictions. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Republican National Committee welcomed the Brnovich decision, calling it "a resounding victory for election integrity and the rule of law."&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Last week Senate Republicans blocked a sweeping voting rights bill aimed at expanding ballot access for all Americans.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
      <content:encoded xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[<p><strong>WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld controversial Arizona laws that restrict how ballots can be cast, a decision that could have lasting impact on the voting rights of minorities.</strong></p>

<p>President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" with the ruling, which raises questions about the potential success of future challenges against such laws at a time when Republican state legislatures are moving to enact restrictions that critics warn are intended to suppress the vote.</p>

<p>"The attack we are seeing today makes clearer than ever that additional laws are needed to safeguard that beating heart of our democracy," Biden said.</p>

<p>The decision was 6-3, with the court's three liberal justices in dissent.</p>

<p>The case, Brnovich vs Democratic National Committee, involves two Republican-backed electoral laws that were seen as a key test of the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act, which sought in part to prevent discrimination against Black voters.</p>

<p>One requires citizens who vote on election day to cast ballots in the precinct in which they live, while another makes it a felony for advocates like union representatives to collect and deposit voters' ballots, a process critics call ballot harvesting.</p>

<p>Democrats filed suit, arguing that such provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.</p>

<p>A federal appeals court ruled last year that the laws would adversely impact African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, who for socioeconomic reasons are less able to travel to polling stations.</p>

<p>Supporters of the state laws argued in the Supreme Court, where conservative-leaning justices have a 6-3 majority, that the laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud.</p>

<p>Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that every American faces some voting burden and that "mere inconvenience" is not enough to demonstrate a violation of Section 2.</p>

<p>The impact of the laws, he argued, was negligible.</p>

<p>"The mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote," Alito wrote. </p>

<p>"The size of any disparity matters."</p>

<p>Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the decision "undermines" the Voting Rights Act and its twin premises of democracy and racial equality.</p>

<p>"What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten -- in order to weaken -- a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses," Kagan wrote.</p>

<pre><code>   **- 'Severe damage' -**
</code></pre>

<p>The decision is the second blow against the Voting Rights Act in under a decade. </p>

<p>In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a part of the act which had required states with a history of voter discrimination to first receive a green light from the federal authorities before changing any voting rules.</p>

<p>Biden led a chorus of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, left-leaning political action committees, and the American Civil Liberties Union.</p>

<p>"In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure," the president said.</p>

<p>"We should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them."</p>

<p>The outcome of the latest case is seen as particularly important for the Democratic Party, which receives more support from minority voters than Republicans do.</p>

<p>African Americans, for example, voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Biden in the November election, which former president Donald Trump falsely claimed was marred by voter fraud.</p>

<p>Three Trump nominees were confirmed to the nine-member high bench, and they sided with the voting restrictions. </p>

<p>The Republican National Committee welcomed the Brnovich decision, calling it "a resounding victory for election integrity and the rule of law."</p>

<p>Last week Senate Republicans blocked a sweeping voting rights bill aimed at expanding ballot access for all Americans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <category>World</category>
      <guid>https://english.aaj.tv/news/30262045</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 23:02:14 +0500</pubDate>
      <author>none@none.com (AFP)</author>
      <media:content url="https://i.aaj.tv/large/2021/07/60de031b4e6d8.jpg" type="image/jpeg" medium="image" height="2960" width="5264">
        <media:thumbnail url="https://i.aaj.tv/thumbnail/2021/07/60de031b4e6d8.jpg"/>
        <media:title/>
      </media:content>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
