From xxxxxx <[email protected]>
Subject Last Term: Reproductive Rights. This Term: Voting Rights.
Date October 1, 2022 12:30 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[The Supreme Court majority aren’t done undermining American
democracy.]
[[link removed]]

LAST TERM: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. THIS TERM: VOTING RIGHTS.  
[[link removed]]


 

Michael Waldman
September 27, 2022
Brennan Center for Justice
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Supreme Court majority aren’t done undermining American
democracy. _

Supreme Court - Sepia, by IslesPunkFan, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

 

In its first full term, which ended in June, the Supreme Court’s new
conservative supermajority catered to key Republican interest groups:
the NRA, abortion foes, and the fossil fuel industry. What’s up for
this term, which starts on Monday? The raw issue of race in America
— with possibly equally dire results. 

Next week the justices will hear the first big case, which may lead to
an effective final gutting of the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, the
Court demolished the VRA’s preclearance requirements, which required
states and localities with a history of racial discrimination to get
permission from the Justice Department or a federal court to change
voting practices. But Section 2 remained, which the Court said at the
time was enough. 

Then in _Brnovich v. DNC_ in 2021, the Court made it much harder to
use Section 2 to stop voter suppression. 

Now the Supreme Court could be coming for what is left of Section 2
— and its use to block racial gerrymandering. Next week, the
justices will hear a case out of Alabama. When the lawmakers there
drew new congressional maps in 2021, they included only one district
likely to elect a Black member of Congress, despite the fact that
Black voters are more than a quarter of the electorate. Three federal
judges, two of them named by Donald Trump, ruled that the map was
racially discriminatory.  

Through its shadow docket
[[link removed]],
however, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court ruling and
reinstated the map — thus the 2022 election will be held using a map
already declared discriminatory. Even John Roberts, who has vigorously
attacked the Voting Rights Act throughout his career, was so appalled
that he dissented from the action. 

Now the full Court will hear the case. Alabama’s arguments turn the
Voting Rights Act upside down. The state argues that it cannot satisfy
the challengers’ demand for fair representation, because doing so
would require some explicit consideration of race in the redrawing of
the map. This, the state argues, would represent an unconstitutional
consideration of race as the predominant factor. 

This flies in the face of everything the Voting Rights Act stands for.
To be clear, the law does not elevate race as the _only factor_ to
be considered in redistricting, but it clearly allows it to be
considered as _one factor_. Indeed, the law — which has been in
effect for decades — would make no sense in a world where race
cannot be considered. The case could represent yet another insult to
the venerable Voting Rights Act and could dull the most effective
remaining safeguard against racial discrimination in redistricting.

The case is not the only potentially explosive case that the Court
will hear regarding race in America during this term. The justices
will also hear _Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard_, which seeks
to end the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions.
Just as _Dobbs_ represented the conservative majority’s
opportunity to end the era of _Roe_, _FAIR v. Harvard_ gives the
justices a chance to overturn _Grutter v. Bollinger_, the 2003 case
in which the Court upheld racial diversity as a factor in college
admissions.

Regular readers of _The Briefing_ know that _Moore v. Harper_ is
also on the docket this term. The case is an audacious bid by
gerrymanderers in North Carolina to sweep aside many of the checks and
balances against their power to set election laws and procedures. The
plaintiff’s dubious reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause
would free the legislature from the governor’s veto, state judicial
review, and even the boundaries of their own state constitutions, when
running elections.

Justice Elena Kagan said it well in July. If “over time the court
loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment,
that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy,” she said. After all,
“nobody can throw the bums out.” She warned, “The way the Court
retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like
a court. By doing the kinds of things that do not seem to people
political or partisan. By not behaving as though we are just people
with individual political, or policy, or social preferences that we
are making everybody live with.”

This case and the others this term will test whether the Court
continues to toss its own credibility overboard like inconvenient
baggage. The first test will come in the gerrymandering case. At a
time when American democracy is under assault, the stakes could not be
higher.

_Michael Waldman
[[link removed]] is president
of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan
law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of
democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice
on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and
constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer who is
an expert on the presidency and American democracy, has led the Center
since 2005._

* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]
* Dobbs v. Jackson
[[link removed]]
* abortion rights
[[link removed]]
* voting rights
[[link removed]]
* Voting Rights Act
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Portside
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United States
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • L-Soft LISTSERV