US Supreme Court: And now for the right to vote?

Rarely has the US Supreme Court been under such scrutiny as it is now. Right-wing Republicans hope he delivers another sweeping ruling that could affect all of America’s democracy.

One sentence has been heard again and again in the USA since the beginning of July: the Supreme Court is out of control. It is supporters of the US Democrats who warn that democracy in the United States is in danger.

In an interview with the radio station NPR, law professor Melissa Murray speaks of one of the most extreme session periods in the history of the court: “The conservatives have a sufficiently large majority and they seem ready to reconsider things that we already thought were settled.”

Trump’s legacy

The critics are reacting to the most recent judgments of the court. Whether abortion, gun rights or requirements for environmental protection – the right-wing conservative judges on the Supreme Court prevailed with their majority. They gave US Republicans success on contentious issues. US President Joe Biden spoke of an outrageous behavior.

In one case, the judges even overturned an earlier landmark decision: For example, the court had guaranteed for 50 years that women in the United States had the legal option to have an abortion. Now state laws are once again regulating whether abortions are allowed or are almost completely banned.

The majority thinks differently

In polls, a majority of Americans polled said they believe the court’s abortion decision was wrong. The judgments on weapons law and environmental protection are similarly controversial in public. The debate is accordingly emotional.

That’s why a new case is making headlines now, and it won’t be heard until the fall at the earliest. The fact that the conservative Supreme Court judges want to hear the plaintiffs is seen by some lawyers and commentators in the USA as proof of where things are headed.

At its core is the question of whether state legislators should be able to decide on the right to vote alone, without the possibility of objections from courts or governors. Or, as Murray puts it, “Do state courts have the right to impose limits on laws that deter voters from voting, such as the shaping of constituencies after voter registration.”

A judgment would have consequences for congressional elections, but possibly also for presidential elections and the entire democracy in the United States, some lawyers fear.

A common process – and its special form

The reason is a dispute in North Carolina. There, the Republican deputies with their majority in parliament had redesigned the constituencies for the congressional elections, a normal process every ten years.

But the deputies passed a bill that should ensure that ten of the 14 constituencies go to the Republicans even before the actual election. Although voters’ votes across the state are almost evenly distributed between Republicans and Democrats.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the attempt was unconstitutional. In other states, it had happened to US Democrats in similar attempts.

But North Carolina Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court. They believe MPs have the sole and independent authority to set rules for elections. They refer to the constitution.

aftermath of the presidential election

Republicans in several states had already pursued this theory of right-wing lawyers of the “independent state legislature” after the last presidential election. They considered not accepting the election defeat of their candidate, President-elect Donald Trump.

They wrestled with the idea of ​​having the right to draw up their own list of electors and electors, regardless of the outcome of the count of the votes cast.

Constitutional lawyer Vikram Amar from the University of Illinois is concerned about this argument in an interview with NPR: “When voters in a state choose the electors for the election convention, it is very dangerous if MPs can ignore the decision and vote for themselves. It doesn’t matter to do with constitutional democracy as I understand it.”

Disadvantages of marginalized groups

Are you allowed to do that? Does the US Constitution allow it? That would spell the end of democratic suffrage in the United States, a country where marginalized communities often find it difficult to vote in elections.

North Carolina’s Supreme Court lawsuit doesn’t go that far. The court in Washington DC would not decide until after the upcoming congressional election. But the past few weeks have alarmed supporters of the US Democrats.

Washington’s power curtailed

In two rulings, the Supreme Court relegated decision-making powers to MPs, returning them to the legislature. In the case of abortions, contrary to the previously established case law, the parliaments in the federal states are now responsible again. And in environmental protection, according to the conservative judges, major issues, such as turning away from fossil fuels, cannot be dealt with by the US Congress.

If the right-wing conservative majority on the court continues to follow this line, some lawyers worry, it could give MPs unrestricted authority in questions of electoral law, invoking the constitution. Whoever is in power could then carve out even more ruthless constituencies with the goal of staying in power. And the next presidential election would definitely have the potential for a constitutional crisis.