This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/supreme-court-fight-for-voting-rights
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| How to reverse a supreme court attack on democracy: fight for voting rights | How to reverse a supreme court attack on democracy: fight for voting rights |
| (5 months later) | |
| Many Americans, especially on the left, are up in arms about the US supreme court's decision last week in McCutcheon v FEC, which further deregulates campaign financing. Now the super-wealthy need not go through an independent Super Pac; they can get more money directly into the hands of politicians. | Many Americans, especially on the left, are up in arms about the US supreme court's decision last week in McCutcheon v FEC, which further deregulates campaign financing. Now the super-wealthy need not go through an independent Super Pac; they can get more money directly into the hands of politicians. |
| The worst thing about the decision is that there's not much you can do about it, other than fight to uphold what remains of the rules. The only ways to restore the pre-Roberts court campaign finance rules would be for Congress and the states to amend the Constitution (something that's all but impossible in today's partisan environment), or for the supreme court to change its interpretation of the First Amendment (something that would take the retirement of Justice Scalia or Kennedy and their replacement by a Democratic president, which is not impossible but not something to bank on). | The worst thing about the decision is that there's not much you can do about it, other than fight to uphold what remains of the rules. The only ways to restore the pre-Roberts court campaign finance rules would be for Congress and the states to amend the Constitution (something that's all but impossible in today's partisan environment), or for the supreme court to change its interpretation of the First Amendment (something that would take the retirement of Justice Scalia or Kennedy and their replacement by a Democratic president, which is not impossible but not something to bank on). |
| A lot more can be done to roll back some of the Roberts court's other unfortunate decisions involving our electoral process. Somehow, the political will just doesn't seem to be there. Many white Americans are exercised about campaign finance but little else. But the American public – all of it – should be just as exercised by the assault on voting rights as it is by the court's new views on money in politics. | A lot more can be done to roll back some of the Roberts court's other unfortunate decisions involving our electoral process. Somehow, the political will just doesn't seem to be there. Many white Americans are exercised about campaign finance but little else. But the American public – all of it – should be just as exercised by the assault on voting rights as it is by the court's new views on money in politics. |
| Last summer, in Shelby County v Holder, the same five justices who have been demolishing campaign finance reform issued an opinion striking down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The provision required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting rules. It gave the feds a chance to make sure these rules wouldn't make it harder for minority voters to vote and exercise political power. The Roberts court held that the "coverage formula" which defined which states and localities had to get pre-clearance was unconstitutionally outdated, and said that any new pre-clearance formula would have to be tied to current evidence of voting discrimination by the states. | Last summer, in Shelby County v Holder, the same five justices who have been demolishing campaign finance reform issued an opinion striking down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The provision required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting rules. It gave the feds a chance to make sure these rules wouldn't make it harder for minority voters to vote and exercise political power. The Roberts court held that the "coverage formula" which defined which states and localities had to get pre-clearance was unconstitutionally outdated, and said that any new pre-clearance formula would have to be tied to current evidence of voting discrimination by the states. |
| Thisblow to voting rights came only a few years after the supreme court's decision in Crawford v Marion County Election Board, which upheld a restrictive Indiana voter ID law, even though the state could produce no evidence of a single case of impersonation fraud – the kind of fraud such laws prevent – in the entire history of the state of Indiana. | |
| But the Shelby case did leave open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new coverage formula tied to current conditions. And in the last few months, Sen Patrick Leahy, Rep John Conyers and Rep James Sensenbrenner – a Republican – introduced a new law, the Voting Rights Amendments Act (VRAA). It would impose a new preclearance regime tied to current voting rights violations by the state. States that recently have violated other provisions of the Voting Rights Act can get covered again under the proposed preclearance rules. | But the Shelby case did leave open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new coverage formula tied to current conditions. And in the last few months, Sen Patrick Leahy, Rep John Conyers and Rep James Sensenbrenner – a Republican – introduced a new law, the Voting Rights Amendments Act (VRAA). It would impose a new preclearance regime tied to current voting rights violations by the state. States that recently have violated other provisions of the Voting Rights Act can get covered again under the proposed preclearance rules. |
| The VRAA is far from perfect – and there's a chance the Roberts wrecking crew would take its ball to this new law, too – but the provision is a whole lot better than nothing. It's an improvement on the status quo, where a number of (mostly Republican) states have made it harder to register and vote. Capitol Hill observers believe that the VRAA has an actual chance of making it through the Republican House, if majority leader Eric Cantor decides to support it. | The VRAA is far from perfect – and there's a chance the Roberts wrecking crew would take its ball to this new law, too – but the provision is a whole lot better than nothing. It's an improvement on the status quo, where a number of (mostly Republican) states have made it harder to register and vote. Capitol Hill observers believe that the VRAA has an actual chance of making it through the Republican House, if majority leader Eric Cantor decides to support it. |
| But where are the public demonstrations to pass this desperately needed fix? Outside the minority community, which is pushing hard for the VRAA, where is the agitation? The voting rights issue seems to have fallen off the radar screen, even though the Roberts court's reasoning in the Shelby County case is just as indefensible as its reasoning in Citizens United and McCutcheon in the campaign finance arena. But this is an area where something can and should be done, despite the Roberts court. | But where are the public demonstrations to pass this desperately needed fix? Outside the minority community, which is pushing hard for the VRAA, where is the agitation? The voting rights issue seems to have fallen off the radar screen, even though the Roberts court's reasoning in the Shelby County case is just as indefensible as its reasoning in Citizens United and McCutcheon in the campaign finance arena. But this is an area where something can and should be done, despite the Roberts court. |
| As the legal scholar Sara Mayeux observed last week, John Roberts began his majority opinion in McCutcheon by waxing poetic about democracy when it came to big donors. But he began his explanation in Shelby County by castigating the overreach of Congress in protecting minority voters. This, of course, is backwards. Any basic principles of equality should begin with courts that protect the most vulnerable, not the least. | As the legal scholar Sara Mayeux observed last week, John Roberts began his majority opinion in McCutcheon by waxing poetic about democracy when it came to big donors. But he began his explanation in Shelby County by castigating the overreach of Congress in protecting minority voters. This, of course, is backwards. Any basic principles of equality should begin with courts that protect the most vulnerable, not the least. |
| If the supreme court won't do its job and actually defend democracy, there should be agitation for Congress to do it. And even if more of the American public can't get up in arms about minority voting rights in particular, we should be mad as hell about protecting voting rights for everyone in general. | If the supreme court won't do its job and actually defend democracy, there should be agitation for Congress to do it. And even if more of the American public can't get up in arms about minority voting rights in particular, we should be mad as hell about protecting voting rights for everyone in general. |
| That underreported2008 decision about voter ID in Indiana has taken us down the wrong path, with mostly Republican states passing stricter and stricter voting rules. Most recently, the states of Kansas and Arizona got a federal court to agree that voters have to produce paperwork of citizenship to be able to vote, even in federal elections and even though the US Election Assistance Commission, which is in charge of the federal form, objected. | |
| Last week, the day before the court issued its verdict on McCutcheon, I posted an item on my Election Law Blog about Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach pushing for new literacy tests for voting. The date of the blog post was April 1, and the link to the story went to Google's gag for April Fools' Day. Many readers – including some quite sophisticated lawyers and journalists – took the bait. It isn't funny, but the best April Fools' jokes are the ones that come closest to the truth. Americans, in the John Roberts era, somehow just expect that it's going to get harder and harder to vote in this country – and that there's nothing we can do about it. | Last week, the day before the court issued its verdict on McCutcheon, I posted an item on my Election Law Blog about Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach pushing for new literacy tests for voting. The date of the blog post was April 1, and the link to the story went to Google's gag for April Fools' Day. Many readers – including some quite sophisticated lawyers and journalists – took the bait. It isn't funny, but the best April Fools' jokes are the ones that come closest to the truth. Americans, in the John Roberts era, somehow just expect that it's going to get harder and harder to vote in this country – and that there's nothing we can do about it. |
| It's about time for Congress to pass some new laws protecting voting rights, and it's high time – right now – for us to dare the supreme court to strike even more of them down. | It's about time for Congress to pass some new laws protecting voting rights, and it's high time – right now – for us to dare the supreme court to strike even more of them down. |