SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights act
Voting Rights Must Remain at the Top of Our List in 2024
What happens in November at the ballot box is crucial because of what must be accomplished in 2025 in Congress.
Aug 29, 2024
The freedom to vote had a big moment last week. It was not about how citizens should vote in 2024, but what might happen in 2025. It was a rousing affirmation that could lead to sweeping reform — and may signal a momentous fight ahead.
The Freedom to Vote Act would guarantee early voting and vote by mail, establish automatic registration, ban gerrymandering, bring disclosure to dark money in elections, and strengthen public campaign financing and safeguards against election subversion. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act after it was gutted by the Supreme Court.
This package would be the most significant democracy reform in two generations. It would strike a blow for racial justice. It would strengthen our system of self-government to better represent the people of a changing, growing country. H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 came within two votes of enactment in 2022. Now it is clear that bold democracy reform is at the center of the public agenda going forward.
As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.
Last Wednesday in Chicago, the Brennan Center and Democracy SENTRY held a conversation on voting rights in 2025. Hundreds filled two rooms. We heard from Rep. Joe Morelle, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois. We heard from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, one of the country’s foremost election officials. And we heard from top civil rights leaders Maya Wiley of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Damon Hewitt of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Marc Morial of the National Urban League.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer keynoted. He made clear that the bills are a priority and that he hoped to pass them by February 2025, even if doing so requires changing the rules to allow their passage with a simple-majority vote. “This is vital to democracy,” he told reporters. “This is not just another extraneous issue. This is the wellspring of it all.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, closed the event. She movingly described stepping over broken glass in the Capitol on the evening of January 6, 2021, to ensure that the electoral votes were counted. She explained that the fight over the bills, including frustration with outdated Senate rules, galvanized senators to prepare to act when they have the chance.
The Washington Post saw the significance of lawmakers’ focus on these bills, with a lead story on its website.
And the next night, Vice President Harris promised to sign the two bills.
As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.
Voters and democracy face rising attacks as Election Day approaches. We’ve seen moves to make it easier to block the verdict of voters in Georgia and other states. Defying half a century of precedent, a federal court ruled that voters can’t sue under the Voting Rights Act. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secret donors have flooded elections. As a recent Brennan Center study noted, the racial turnout gap between white and nonwhite voters in states once covered by the Voting Rights Act has grown twice as fast as in the rest of the country. This package would stop this wave of voter suppression in its tracks.
It’s also important politically.
The health of American democracy has ranked among the top issues this year in polls. We must protect against authoritarianism and a repeat of January 6. But what matters most is not what we’re against, but what we’re for: a democracy in which every eligible citizen can vote, have their vote counted, and trust the results.
Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.
Another important audience should take note of the cheers for reform: political insiders who sometimes discount public enthusiasm for democracy reform. As I told the attendees at the Brennan Center’s event, “This is not a messaging bill. It’s for real.” Remember: voting rights failed in 1957, 1960, and 1964 before being enacted in 1965.
How will this play out? We hope leaders from all parties will work to protect the freedom to vote. The last time the Voting Rights Act was considered, in 2006, it passed the Senate unanimously. In 2022, on the other hand, only one Republican senator was even willing to consider supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Sen. Ted Cruz, recognizing the broad popularity of these measures, last time called for an “under-the-dome strategy,” a euphemism for a no-holds-barred filibuster. Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.
At the Brennan Center, we’re proud that so many of the policies in these bills draw on our research and work over two decades. Here’s our commitment: if there is a chance to enact this legislation in 2025, we will do everything we can to make it happen.
As I said in Chicago, over recent years we’ve all been unnerved by the rise of the election deniers. But now there is a democracy movement — deep, diverse, and strong. If we all do our part and do it right, we can make that democracy movement the story of the coming years.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Defend Multiracial Democracy, Progressives Must Embrace Court Reform
When they have the political power to do so, progressives must immediately expand the court to reflect the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints of the nation, and impose term limits on justices.
Jul 18, 2024
As the dust continues to settle on the Supreme Court’s 2023-2024 term, the conservative majority’s existential threat to our democracy (and, in particular, our multiracial democracy) could not be clearer. But progressives have also enabled this threat by refusing to embrace the democratic reforms necessary to bring the court to heel.
Beyond the widely panned decision granting former U.S. President Donald Trump unprecedented immunity from prosecution, the court’s decisions have followed a clear trend of expanding power for the rich and connected (who will have new tools to challenge environmental and consumer protections), and diminishing it for people of color (who will have fewer tools to challenge racist gerrymanders), and the poor (who can now be incarcerated for sleeping outside even when no shelter is available).
Even in supposed bright spots, such as Rahimi, in which the court declined to overrule a federal law that bars anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from having a gun, its rulings have reified white supremacy. The court did not refrain from imposing its “history and tradition” test for gun laws, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged privileges an era “predating the inclusion of women and people of color as full members of the polity.” The court also conspicuously declined to address whether its vision of originalism includes the history of Reconstruction, which fundamentally transformed race relations and laid the foundation for multiracial democracy in the United States.
Lasting protections for the most vulnerable must be won and defended through power building at all levels of society—not in the courts alone.
In the face of the court’s sustained attack on multiracial democracy, progressive responses have so far been ineffective. Progressives arguing before the court have relied on precedent only to see those precedents tossed away in cases ending the right to abortion and outlawing affirmative action. They have grounded their arguments in history only to see the court cherry-pick research to achieve its desired results in cases diminishing the power of federal agencies. And, outside the courtroom, progressives have shone spotlights on Justices Samuel Alito’s and Clarence Thomas’ numerous conflicts of interest, only to have calls for the pair’s recusal fall on deaf ears in cases related to the January 6 insurrection.
Yet in the wake of another devastating term, President Joe Biden has announced no plan for Supreme Court reform. Instead, he seems content to patiently await a vacancy that may never arise to make his next appointment.
Let’s be honest with ourselves—efforts to influence or reshape the court short of structural reform are doomed to fail. Because justices currently have lifetime tenure, and experience has demonstrated that they will time their departures to coincide with ideologically sympathetic presidential administrations, there is no guarantee that another progressive presidency will result in any shift in the court’s ideology.
Meanwhile, as the Court places its thumb on the scale in elections, whether directly, as in Bush v. Gore, or more indirectly by diluting the Voting Rights Act, and unleashing unlimited corporate spending in campaigns, democracy may continue to erode.
When they have the political power to do so, progressives must immediately expand the court to reflect the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints of the nation, and impose term limits on justices (in line with other Western democracies).
Opposition to these straightforward ways to restore democratic accountability have laid bare progressive ambivalences about democracy itself. Some progressive elites, and particularly legal elites, who are wary of reigning in the court point to (supposedly) counter-majoritarian decisions like Brown, Roe, and Obergefell,which expanded rights for people of color, women, and LGBT people, as reasons to preserve the court’s power.
But an overly romantic view of the court risks breezing past the Supreme Court’s efforts to disempower vulnerable groups throughout its history in cases like Dred Scott, which held that Black people were not and could not be citizens, Plessy, which enshrined “separate but equal” for more than half a century, and Korematsu, which denied the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans interned during World War II, and throughout the anti-regulatory Lochner era. And it risks empowering a handful of unaccountable decision-makers above the true levers of social change—the people.
While the Supreme Court was a sometime ally to the movements of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the true heroes of change were civil rights organizers and feminist activists who dared to imagine a brighter future. They pushed the nation (kicking and screaming) closer toward equity as reflected in the enactment of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Meanwhile, as the demise of Roe and its aftermath has made clear, victories that rely on the Supreme Court alone are fragile. Lasting protections for the most vulnerable must be won and defended through power building at all levels of society—not in the courts alone. Continued progress is possible, but only if we restrain a court that is all too happy to defang or dismantle popularly enacted legislation.
We must continue to call out the court’s insidious efforts to undermine democracy. We must also hold progressive leaders, and especially the progressive bar, accountable for their role in enabling this erosion. And we must demand that the president and Congress take action to expand the court and impose term limits. If they do not, it’s difficult to see how the court’s future terms won’t be darker mirrors of this one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Juneteenth Was Not Freely Given—It Was Won
On Juneteenth's call to justice and the U.S. Supreme Court's role in the eternal quest for Black liberation.
Jun 19, 2024
Juneteenth resonates as a symbol of freedom and resilience, encapsulating the enduring struggle against oppression and the relentless pursuit of equality. It’s a day of remembrance, celebration, and reflection on the journey from bondage to liberation. Beyond its cultural significance, Juneteenth challenges the United States to confront its history of racial injustice and commit to building a future where every citizen enjoys true freedom and equality under the law. Juneteenth is a verb.
In the annals of American history, the Supreme Court played a pivotal yet contradictory role in the quest for Black liberation. As we reflect on our Juneteenth journey, it is evident that the Court has been both a catalyst for progress and an obstacle to justice.
From the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which denied citizenship to African Americans, to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, which dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation, the Court's decisions have swung like a pendulum, shaping the contours of racial justice in America.
The Supreme Court's rulings have occasionally propelled the nation toward equality. The Brown decision 70 years ago, declaring state laws establishing separate public schools for Black and white students to be unconstitutional, ignited the Civil Rights Movement. This was a moment when the Court stood on the right side of history, challenging entrenched systems of racial oppression and setting a precedent for future advances in civil rights.
As we look to the future, let us draw inspiration from the resilience and courage of those who have fought for justice before us—those who fought for freedom from bondage.
However, the path to Black liberation is not linear, and the Court has often regressed, reinforcing racial hierarchies and undermining progress. The 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, serves as a stark reminder. By weakening federal oversight of voting laws, the Court opened the door to a new era of voter suppression, disproportionately affecting Black communities.
This duality underscores a broader truth: legal victories, while crucial, are insufficient on their own. They must be accompanied by sustained activism and grassroots mobilization to ensure that the principles of justice are translated into lived realities. The Court's decisions, influenced by the prevailing political and social climates, highlight the importance of a vigilant and engaged citizenry.
Recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action vividly highlight the Court's profound limitations placed on Black liberation, spanning both public and private sectors, with innovations from Black women entrepreneurs poised for continued suppression. Amid decisions that perpetuate systemic inequalities, we confront entrenched patterns of injustice and demand an unwavering judiciary committed to equality and justice for all.
In the context of ongoing struggles against systemic racism and for Black lives, the Supreme Court's role remains pivotal. Advocating for a judiciary that reflects the diverse experiences and needs of the American populace is imperative. This necessitates championing justices who possess not only legal acumen but also a steadfast commitment to social justice.
The conversation about the Court's role in Black liberation must extend beyond the judiciary itself. It requires a holistic approach that includes legislative and policy reforms, educational initiatives, democracy and economic policies aimed at dismantling the structural barriers that perpetuate racial inequities.
It is through the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and public institutions that we can hope to achieve a more just and equitable society.
As we look to the future, let us draw inspiration from the resilience and courage of those who have fought for justice before us—those who fought for freedom from bondage. Juneteenth was not freely given—it was won.
The journey toward Black liberation is far from over, and the Supreme Court, while a powerful institution, is but one arena to reform in this ongoing struggle. It is through the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and public institutions that we can hope to achieve a more just and equitable society.
On this Juneteenth, our task is to remain vigilant, to hold our leaders accountable, and to continue the fight for a society where justice is not merely an ideal, but a reality for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular