In Washington, D.C., summer’s swelter has given way to rain and cooler temperatures, but thestart of a new Supreme Court term is shining a hot spotlight upon cases that pose threats to our democracy.
One of those cases was argued Tuesday morning, the second day of the Court’s October Term. In Merrill v. Milliganthe court is being asked by Alabama to curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the strongest remaining federal statutory protection against racial discrimination in voting and redistricting.
The case centers around a voting map adopted by the state legislature that deprives Black voters in Alabama of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process by dividing them across multiple districts, a clear case of racial vote dilution. Campaign Legal Center’s (CLC) friend-of-the-court brief, which was discussed during Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral argument, included alternative maps that adhered to constitutional requirements by avoiding vote dilution, while also meeting priorities identified by Alabama lawmakers. If the Court adopts the State of Alabama’s arguments in this case, it could become the latest in a series of decisions by the Roberts Court’s conservative majority to limit historically bipartisan federal protections related to the freedom to vote, as we highlighted in our recent report. What I can say following oral arguments is that the precise outcome of this case is uncertain, but a majority of Justices appear to be sympathetic to Alabama’s argument that Section Two of the Voting Rights Act should at least be narrowed.
In the second case, Moore v. Harper, the plaintiffs are advancing a radical legal concept known as the independent state legislature theory, which suggests that state legislatures cannot be constrained by state courts or state constitutional provisions when regulating congressional elections, including the process of drawing congressional districts. Such a ruling would give partisan politicians free rein to gerrymander voting maps, pass anti-voter laws for congressional elections, and could result in states having different election rules for state and federal elections – a recipe for chaos on Election Day. In our view, this concept would in fact violate basic principles of federalism and undermine the rule of law in all states. We will be filing a brief in this case shortly.
To learn more about how the Supreme Court is impacting our democracy, I strongly urge everyone to watch this video featuring CLC’s Paul Smith and Aseem Mulji, along with special guests Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Helen White of Protect Democracy. In addition to an analysis of cases before the Court this term, the discussion highlights the increasing influence of anonymous special interests on the Court’s deliberative process. You can find more on these important issues in our recent blog post on the Supreme Court.
I also want to encourage those who take issue with the Court’s anti-democracy bent to make their voices heard. Be respectful, but don’t be afraid to express your “dissent” in the court of public opinion.
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center is dedicated to advancing democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.
