Running SCOTUS thread

Court sides with an Arizona law that requires in person voting to be in the precinct they live and bans ballot harvesting. This was a strict down the line vote. I’m still processing what this means but I guess the big take away are a state can impose restrictions on voting in-line with the VRA but they don’t give a test for it.



And the other big one, the court struck down a California law requiring charities and organizations to name their biggest donors.

 

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett wore their new robes to court today. Roger Taney is smiling in hell today.

 

Is there a good reason in person voting shouldnt be in your home precinct? More precincts = shorter lines = more enfranchisement?

 

I think that’s where Keagan was going in her dissent. Basically these restrictions are fine if you have ample places for people to vote but in inner cities you don’t. I think Alito was leaning on the vote by mail in Arizona to basically say the law doesn’t violate the VRA, 14th or 15th amendments because look at all this access. Except where there isn’t access.

 

Yes except in larger population centers where more minorities live, precincts tend to get consolidated and lines get long. In my neck of the woods with 40,000ish people, before we did strict mail in voting for all, I had to walk walk by one polling place to get to my polling place. And I live less than a half mile from my polling place. If it was like that for everyone, we’d be good. Just go to your precinct and vote. Lines would be short. But notoriously there always seems to be polling center problems in certain areas and elections officials who don’t want to lax rules to make voting easier because of the boogie man “voter fraud” might creep up.

 

Being purely objective, I can see where the Majority went. They said changes can be made to voting rules unless some actual discrimination is shown. Now before 2013, the law of the land was that the VRA said no changes unless the State could make a showing that the change would NOT adversely affect minorities. Unfortunately in 2013 the Supreme Court nullified that burden, so now States are changing rules left and right, knowing it restricts voting to the poor. The Majority is saying, "well changes on their face are the same for everyone, so no harm."

The main criticism of the "Warren Court" in the 1960s-1970s was that it would make decisions because that was what was "fair" in their view, that's where "substantive" due process came from, the Court would rule saying something was fundamentally unfair. I'm not disagreeing but simply pointing out that the conservatives are (obviously) refusing to do so.

This makes it much harder for the poor to vote, but doesn't mean they can't vote. So there are several steps on the Dems now,

1. Plan ahead and get the vote out knowing what the rules are;
2. Change the vote in the State houses and get control of voting rules.

Easy to say, I know, harder to do.

 

Democrats walk on eggshells around Breyer as GOP plans another blockade for any Biden Supreme Court pick - CNNPolitics

Let's be clear - the biggest obstacle the Democrats have in getting things done, is other alleged Democrats. Why Breyer hasn't retired already knowing the stakes make me think he doesn't really care.

 

Been a busy six months for the Court. I imagine there are groups out there now planning challenges to things they never would have imagined had a chance in hell with the Supreme Court - but with this Court, now - who knows? There seems to be no consistent throughline, or legal reasoning on any of these decisions, except that the favor Republican party voters and donors and their views. I do wonder if lower court justices will now start following their lead.

David Souter is just 82 - I'd love to hear his thoughts on the current state of the Court. Seemed pretty clear, when he retired under Obama.

 

SCOTUS refused to hear trucking industry's appeal of California's AB5 law classifying independent owner-operators as employees; see Economy thread. I believe it also effects ride-sharing drivers.

 

Every dissent that goes 6-3 overturning public protections should begin with the line: "This holding was decided wrongly and should be overturned by a future court."

 

JUST IN: Public Opinion for Supreme Court Drops Below Biden Approval Rating

And this is from last year, but it gives a more historical perspective. Generally speaking, the public likes the court to me more gradual in its decision-making - rather than suddenly legalize same-sex marriage or expand eminent domain laws. They were actually more popular after Bush v. Gore, than they are now.

Approval of U.S. Supreme Court Down to 40%, a New Low

 

This is up for the next session
Just in time for the 2024 election

Supreme Court to hear major case over state legislatures' power to set federal elections rules