Introduction: Supreme Court and Voting Rights

In a dramatic all-nighter, Senate Republicans recently blocked Democrats from bringing their voting rights bill, the For the People Act, to a vote. Democrats are vowing try again in September. The legislation may be the last, best hope to counter Republican voter suppression, because the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for stretching the Constitution to give Republican states latitude to suppress minority voting.

Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on Voting Rights

In its 5-4 July decision in Brnovich v. the DNC, the Court held that Arizona voting restrictions didn’t violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from denying or abridging the right to vote based on race or color. Writing for the six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that Arizona’s restrictions fall more heavily on minorities, but argued that the disparity doesn’t “result in unequal access to” voting and that “Small disparities are less likely … to indicate … a system is not equally open.” But as the three dissenting justices argued, that view ignores the facts.

Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on Voting Rights

First, the disparities aren’t small. In Maricopa County — which accounts for 60 percent of all of Arizona’s votes — Hispanics, Blacks and Native Americans were twice as likely as whites to have their ballots discarded under similar rules in the 2016 election. In Pima County (15 percent of Arizona’s votes), Hispanics were 148 percent, Blacks 80 percent, and Native Americans 74 percent more likely to have their votes tossed.

Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on Voting Rights

Arizona’s new law discards votes cast in non-designated locations and prohibits third parties from collecting ballots to deliver to designated locations unless they are family, caregivers or live in the same household; only 18 percent of Native Americans living in rural counties receive home mail delivery, and many would have to travel up to two hours to get to a mailbox. As many as half of them don’t own cars and rely on friends and neighbors for transportation (not family, members of the same household, or caregivers).

Supreme Court’s View on Voting Rights Disparities

Nonetheless, the Court decided these disadvantages don’t exceed the “usual burdens of voting.” It argued that Arizona does give minorities equal opportunity to vote and maintained that the “burdens…are modest.”

Impact of Small Disparities on Voting Rights

Second, those so-called “small disparities” can make big differences. The predicted number of votes that would be tossed out under Arizona’s law exceeds the margins of victory in 2018 and 2020. Trump lost Arizona by only 10,457 votes. Native American and Black voters likely carried victories for Biden and down-ballot black candidates.

Legal and Historical Context of Voting Rights

Third, the Arizona law doesn’t meet the Voting Rights Act requirement that any disparities in minority voting opportunities be justified by legitimate government interests. Roberts acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter fraud in Arizona, but argued that the state still had a legitimate interest in preventing it — essentially allowing Arizona’s voting restrictions based on a risk that didn’t exist. That decision will encourage more voter restrictions based on virtually any hypothetical concern Republican state legislators might choose.

John Roberts’ History with Voting Rights

Roberts has long displayed an affinity for voting restrictions. As a young aide in Reagan’s Justice Department, he wrote 25 memos and ghost op-eds opposing a 1982 VRA amendment that made violations easier to prove.

His most sweeping attack on minority voting was in the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, which struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which required states with histories of suppressing minority voting to clear voting law changes with federal authorities in advance.

Constitutional and Legislative Considerations

The Shelby decision relied in part on the 10^th Amendment, which reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government. But the 10^th Amendment doesn’t mention elections. The 15^th Amendment does. It prohibits states from denying or abridging the right to vote based on race or color, and expressly gives Congress the power to enforce that prohibition. Requiring federal pre-clearance for states with a history of voter suppression would seem to fall clearly within that power. So, the 10^th Amendment should not supersede the 15^th when it comes to Congress’s power to uphold voting rights.

Article I, Section 4 also allows Congress to alter restrictive state election laws relating to Representatives and Senators. Since they predominantly share the same ballots as presidential candidates, Congress’s power to alter those laws also affects presidential elections.

The Shelby decision alsoinvoked the theory of equal sovereignty (ES) which requires the Federal government to treat states equally. The Court majority held that Section 4(b) of the VRA violated the Constitution because it singled out certain states for federal pre-clearance.

But ES is nowhere in the Constitution; it’s not even a law. It was invented to challenge different criteria used to admit new states into the Union. In application, it forbade laws that exceeded Congress’s Constitutional powers. But changing state election laws is well within Congress’s power under the 15^th Amendment. 

Roberts’ Role in Voter Suppression Cases

Roberts has been a swing vote or joining vote on nearly every voter suppression law that came before him. Notably all the laws he ruled on were enacted by Republicans. Leaked communications reveal a deliberate Republican strategy of suppressing minority voting.

It’s therefore no surprise Arizona’s voter restriction law followed minority voters’ contribution to Republican losses, or that the demise of VRA’s Section 4(b) opened the floodgates to a cascade of Republican voter restriction laws that violated the VRA. It was all part of a conscious GOP strategy.

The Future of Voting Rights Legislation

Voter suppression is a threat to democracy’s core and needs solutions. There is little hope for solutions from the Supreme Court. Republicans have stacked it with justices who will keep them in power even if it means abusing the Constitution.

The best hope of stemming Republican voter suppression is therefore to pass the For the People Act. Currently, Congressional Republicans oppose it. Ending or modifying the filibuster could put Senate Democrats in a position to pass it anyway, but not all of them support that.

At his confirmation hearing Roberts promised, “Any issues that come before me under the Voting Rights Act, I will… decide after full and fair consideration… in light of… the critical role… the right to vote plays as preservative of all other rights.” He has not kept that promise. That should stiffen the resolve of Democrats, and perhaps even a couple of conscientious Republicans, to do whatever’s necessary to pass the For the People Act and preserve Americans’ rights.

The post Don’t expect Supreme Court to do the right thing on voting rights first appeared on Inside The Political Chaos.

Voter Suppression: The Republican Strategy

Of the 25 states that adopted voter restrictions since 2010, 22 are controlled by Republicans, and their laws target Democratic-leaning voters. Voter suppression is Donald Trump’s best — perhaps only — chance of winning in November. Democrats need to gear up to fight it or risk another four years of Trump.

Republican Tactics to Suppress Votes

Although voter suppression measures have been struck down by the courts in some states, Republicans continue to try them in others. Democrats should focus especially on eight battleground states, plus Texas, Minnesota, and Alabama, all of which have voter suppression measures in place.

In the courts as well as on the ground, Democrats will need to fight the many ways Republicans are trying to render votes for Democrats moot, particularly those of people of color. Their tactics include:

• Changing mail-in ballots to substitute Republican candidates for Democratic candidates while “helping” voters fill them out.
• Closing polls in predominantly black or Latino areas.  
• In some cases, prohibiting the use of mail-in ballots by voters under 65, and in others, attempting to prohibit the use of ballot drop boxes.
• Nullifying mail-in ballots received after election day.
• Requiring photo ID to vote at polling places.
• Requiring witnesses, notaries, and photo IDs to vote by absentee ballot.
• Limiting the ways organizers can help voters get to polling places or submit absentee ballots.
• Prohibiting voting by felons who served their time.
• Purging ballots of voter suppression who fail to update their addresses, whose signatures don’t match those on file with state officials, whose votes are cast at other than at their assigned polling places, or who skipped six years of elections.

Combating Voter Suppression: What Democrats Can Do

There are ways to combat these tactics. For example, Trump has tried to engineer delaying the receipt of mail-in ballots and not counting those that arrive after the election. The administration has apparently backed down on this, but we still need to be vigilant and protect voting by mail; 31 states don’t allow ballots received after election day to be counted even if they’re postmarked before then. Democrats should push them to enact laws allowing ballots to be counted as long as they’re postmarked on or before the election. Red states should cooperate. After all, Republicans, like Democrats, want their votes counted.

The Role of the Supreme Court in Republican Tactics

To re-enfranchise voters, Democrats will not only have to fight Republican legislatures and elected and appointed officials; they will also have to fight the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts has been lauded for keeping the Court from becoming too political by sometimes siding with liberals. Yet he has broken the promise of the 15^th Amendment that the “right … to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color…” Roberts has been the tiebreaking vote upholding Republican voter suppression efforts in nearly every case that has come before his Court. That includes a decision that thwarted the federal Voting Rights Act. The Court ruled its formula for determining which states must first clear any changes in voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal district court to ensure they wouldn’t disadvantage minorities was unconstitutional. The decision facilitated purging an estimated 16 million voters between 2014 and 2016.

Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, who has joined Roberts in such decisions since being appointed to the court, were both members of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) – an organization which reportedly has helped states suppress minority voting for decades. There is currently no code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices to help determine whether they should recuse themselves from cases because of their prior affiliations. The late Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act several times to change that, and Congress should revive and pass it.

Legislative Actions Against Voter Suppression

Republicans are trying to thwart the core of our democracy: the right to vote. As Barack Obama warned when he eulogized John Lewis, “those in power are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting.” Democrats must stand up to them to defeat Donald Trump and restore integrity to the White House.

The post Democrats must go on the offensive against voter suppression first appeared on Inside The Political Chaos.