“Historic Session”
The right to fair elections is now at stake before the US Supreme Court
People rush into the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. They want to follow the oral hearings, among other things, on the right to vote.
© Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP
Ever since the US Supreme Court overturned abortion rights, there have been fears that the conservative judiciary will restrict further civil rights. The new session has now begun. What’s at stake.
When the Supreme Court overturned the landmark US abortion law ruling — the Roe v Wade precedent — in June, it drew national and international attention. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court judges is seen as Donald Trump’s true political legacy – prepared well in advance by Republican power broker Mitch McConnell. He’s known for a long time: Presidents come and go. However, US society can be shaped in the long term primarily through case law. The justices of the US Supreme Court are appointed for life. In the foreseeable future, it can therefore be expected that the conservative point of view will generally prevail on the decisive questions.
Since the end of Roe v Wade, Liberals and Democrats fear that more liberal civil rights are at stake. The anxious question is: how far to the right will the US drift? And what does that mean for US society? John Roberts, chief of the Supreme Court, says normalcy has returned with the start of the new session this Monday. People can attend the public sessions, have the opportunity to verbally present their arguments on the pending cases, and all barricades meant to keep protesters out have been dismantled in front of the Washington DC courthouse. “The more normal the better,” says Roberts. But what “normal” means has been unclear to many since Roe v Wade’s exit.
Roe v Wade: Supreme Court “acted ideologically”
“The court acted ideologically to get the outcome these judges wanted,” said Eric Holder, attorney general during Barack Obama’s administration, in a CNN interview regarding the abortion law decision. On the same TV channel, John Malcolm of the conservative Heritage Foundation countered that “the left had prevailed for a very, very long time” in the highest judiciary. But if things don’t go according to their ideas, “the left” will immediately question the entire Supreme Court, Malcolm criticized.
Whichever legal opinion one follows: it seems indisputable that the achievements of the more liberal jurisprudence of the past decades are at stake. This could be the focus of the current session of the Supreme Court:
Suffrage: Doubtful allocation of constituencies
Several cases in this session affect the right to fair elections. In Moore v Harper (Republican spokesman in North Carolina v suffrage activist) is primarily about the distribution of constituencies in the southern state on the Atlantic coast. In fact, the case is fundamental. The decision could mean that the state legislatures (and thus the respective majority faction) have a completely free hand in shaping the electoral process, including in federal elections – without any manipulative favoritism being brought to justice for one side or violations of the state constitution or could be stopped by objection from governors. The basis is the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, which is very popular with Republicans and reads such a wealth of power out of the US Constitution. This would also open the door to so-called gerrymandering, i.e. the practice of tailoring the constituencies to the distribution of the population in such a way that the chances of an election victory increase enormously. Republicans generally benefit from this practice. In February, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled the request “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is feared that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court will see things differently and legalize this type of electoral interference.
The matter is similar Milligan v Merrill, which is about the electoral districts for congressional elections in the state of Alabama. According to this, a majority by a black electorate is only possible in one of seven districts. Because in recent years the proportion of blacks in the population has increased (now at 27 percent) while the proportion of whites has decreased (from 68 to 64 percent), the current county distribution discriminates against blacks. The Supreme Court has already put a decision of a lower court on hold, so the current rule will probably be applied to the midterms. Three Democratic judges said they saw “a clear dilution of votes” to the detriment of the black population. The fundamental decision of the US Supreme Court is still pending. Civil rights and minority advocates are citing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the case, which allows racially discriminatory electoral allocations to be challenged.
Economics, religion, free speech and same-sex couples
The case 303 Creative LLC v Elenis has the potential to become a major LGBTQ rights controversy, although the issue itself is quite simple. It comes as a follow-up to a 2018 Supreme Court decision when the Supreme Court upheld a baker who refused to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. However, this decision related exclusively to this specific issue, while the currently pending case is more fundamental. A web designer from Colorado who makes websites for weddings, but does not want to do it for same-sex couples for religious reasons, insists on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Lower courts initially rejected the web designer’s request. But the fundamental question now is whether creators must remain silent about their stance when offering their services on the open market, or whether their rights are restricted when – as the law currently provides – they offer their goods or services to all interested customers “regardless of the protected characteristics,” according to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.
Racism and Educational Opportunities
When it comes to college admissions, the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has complained about racism in the procedures of renowned universities. Specifically, the admissions process at Harvard University discriminates against Asian applicants and the process at the University of North Carolina (UNC) disadvantages white and Asian applicants. The universities countered that race was just one characteristic that was taken into account when applying. And should this feature be banned, it will have a major impact on the number of underrepresented students on campus, the institutions argued. Should an applicant’s race really play a role in admission to college? According to experts, the decision of the Supreme Court will influence whether it will be possible to promote equal educational opportunities effectively.
It is still unclear when the Court of Justice will make these and other judgments in detail. Currently, the proceedings are partly in oral hearings. According to the US media, America is expecting a “historic session” with decisions that could shake up voting rights in particular.
Sources: CNN; axios; Supreme Court of the United States, “New York Times”