25
votes
Inside the Republican plot for permanent minority rule
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- David Daley, Jeff Shesol, Alexander Clapp, Ryan D. Doerfler, Samuel Moyn, Patrick Blanchfield
- Published
- Oct 15 2020
- Word count
- 8068 words
I really, really hope that Dems can get control of the Senate and presidency and do something about this. It's a truly disgusting abuse of our democracy that this happened.
I suspect repairing the Voting Rights Act is one of the first things the Democrats will do if/when they gain power. Which is great. The problem is that unless they accompany this with an expansion of the Supreme Court very shortly after the election, the conservative justices will just strike it down in 2022/2024/as soon as Republicans take the Senate again (because I suspect the conservatives would decline to take a case to gut voting rights while Democrats have the Senate). The conservative "originalists" have made it very clear that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote and therefore laws to that effect are unconstitutional. Unless the Supreme Court is reformed, they can undo just about anything.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Republicans immediately begin packing the supreme court if they win in November. It follows the pattern of making a lot of noise about the Dems doing something and then doing literally the thing.
What's the (ostensible) logic there? I can see the argument that the constitution doesn't guarantee universal suffrage, given that voting was pretty much just for white men when it was drafted, but isn't that what newer laws are for?
My understanding is that they must be claiming it's somehow in direct conflict with the constitution, and I'm not seeing how they can make that argument.
For voting rights laws, the apparent logic is that the lack of a constitutional right to vote means that the federal government doesn't have the right to tell individual states how to run their elections. This lets them simultaneously not care if, e.g., CA implements strong voting rights laws while NC/SC/GA restrict voting rights.
Would the fix be to add an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to vote (i.e. automatic voter registration) as well as the right to participate without undue hardship (long voting lines, proximity to polling places) be the solution?
That would be fantastic and that would probably do it. Getting an amendment to the constitution passed in this environment sounds incredibly difficult, though.
I would contend that the common sense reading is the correct interpretation, for the same reason you are entitled to be judged by a jury of your peers.
Most of the bad readings come out of lawyers, not laypeople. Because the lawyers often have an agenda, even if it's only 'keep law complex enough we still need lawyers.'
This same thing happened to the 4th amendment, which got bulldozed in the digital age when some lawyer successfully argued 'Digital files aren't technically paper and thus aren't protected'.
Makes me think the future of secure data transfer is with a briefcase of QR codes.
In an ideal world, yes.
In practical terms, ratification requires not just a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, but also three-quarters (currently 38) state legislatures to ratify it.
Currently, Republicans have complete control (both houses) of 29 state legislatures, while Democrats control 19. So any constitutional amendment that Republican state legislatures would see as a threat to their control has basically zero chance of being ratified.
Why wouldn't the Republicans just add more justices to the Supreme Court?
The goal should be to pack the court and ram through such strong voter rights laws that republicans can’t win again. Combine that with admitting DC/PR as states—and perhaps other more drastic actions—to swing the balance of power in the Senate more substantially.
It’s a gamble with a lot of potential upside. If the gamble fails and republicans do take power again, I’m sure they would pack the court in response. But it’s hard to imagine that scenario being much worse than the scenario we’re currently in with a 6-3 court.
The Intercept has a good article responding to common objections about court packing like this.
There's only so long you can be the adult while someone repeatedly hits you in the face before you need to move on to other solutions than asking them to stop.
I don't know, it is 100% in their interests to tackle this, as more fair voting practices leads to more Dems in government. I think it would ultimately be beneficial to the GOP too, as they would be forced to move towards the center to win elections instead of relying on a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate agitated into a fervent voting record. They wouldn't trend towards such polarization if those positions couldn't win elections.
Okay, but that's like explaining to your dog why it's in their best interest to go to the vet. They don't want to go in the cage, they don't want to get poked and prodded and they aren't going to understand any of your rational points and figures, because you both have diametrically opposed goals and very different vocabularies.
I said it would be beneficial to the GOP (as a whole), not that they would like it. ;)
For the Dems this is self serving. The only reason to not tackle this is getting tied up in other issues and they run out of time. I suspect after the underhandedness of the Republicans for the past bit most of the Democratic base is pretty unhappy and want to see things changed.
It's kind of how America has been running its corporations recently, it's not exactly a surprise that it has seeped into politics as well.