The Supreme Court made a good decision, finally, on a voting rights case.
This case originated -- where else? -- in Arizona, the state that has made a name for itself by demonizing Latinos.
Arizona had made it tougher for prospective new voters to register than the federal government requires. Federal law says that it's enough to let people fill out mail-in registration cards and swear that they are citizens. They don't need to show actual proof.
Arizona, however, required that proof, demanding that the new voter show an Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, or a passport.
The court ruled, 7-2, that this was over the top.
That's a welcome ruling, and a slap in the face of Republican governors, legislatures, and anti-immigrant forces that are doing everything in their powers to deny people the right to vote -- especially people of color who are likely to vote Democratic. Four other states had followed Arizona down this dubious path, and more than a dozen more were considering. That path is now barred.
In this case, Alito and Thomas dissented. Guess who wrote the majority opinion?
Antonin Scalia.
On a few things this term, he's coming around.
Two weeks ago, he wrote a scathing dissent in the case that allowed the police to grab your DNA upon arrest.
And now, he's seen the light on this voting rights issue.
That's the shocker of this Supreme Court's term, so far at least.
If you liked this story by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine, check out his story Why Was This Spying Classified in the First Place?.
Follow Matthew Rothschild Follow Matthew Rothschild @mattrothschild on Twitter.