July 2, 2021
On the last day of the term, the Supreme Court issued two decisions, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___(2021) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S.___ (2021), which together spell the end of American democracy. This may sound hyperbolic, but even a cursory reading of these decisions leads to that conclusion. In Brnovich, the Court finished the job that it started in Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, and eviscerated the Voting Rights Act.
Samuel Alito’s majority opinion, joined by the five other members of the Court’s ultra-conservative block, thoroughly rewrote the standards of Section 2 to turn them on their head. In Alito’s radical view, statutes “with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities are not inherently unlawful,” (Source: “How Unprecedented Is the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Ruling?” by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate.com, 7/1/21).
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent shows just how much of a radical departure the majority’s decision represents. Justice Kagan exhaustively details how the majority both reinterpreted the plain meaning of the statute, and arrogated legislative power for the Court in a manner that arguably violates the separation of powers. She notes that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “applies to any voting rule, of any kind. The provision prohibits not just the denial, but also the abridgment of a citizen’s voting rights on account of race,” (Source: Brnovich, dissent of Kagan, J.).
Justice Kagan points out that in drafting Section 2 Congress explicitly focused on the effect, rather than the intent, of a given voting rule, because of the difficulty of demonstrating discriminatory intent. As we know, the century of voter suppression that followed the enactment of the 15th Amendment relied on “facially neutral” poll taxes and literacy tests, (backed up by violent repression). This disenfranchisement scheme was so effective that “by 1965, only 27% of black Georgians, 19% of black Alabamans and 7% …of black Mississippians were registered to vote,” (Source: ibid). This is the past to which the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision condemns us to return.
While the Brnovich decision will be an accelerant for Republican efforts to incinerate voting rights, yesterday’s companion decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) makes it easier for monied forces to hide their disproportionate influence on public debate. In Bonta, the Court held that California’s law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors violated the donors freedom of association rights under the First Amendment, on the theory that the mere threat of disclosure might deter people from donating to causes of their choice. Chief Justice Roberts issued a sweeping ruling even though the state keeps donors’ names confidential and even though no individual donor had actually alleged that they were deterred.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that this decision “marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bullseye,” which regulated entities can evade by citing vague “First Amendment ‘privacy concerns,’” (Source: Bonta, dissent of Sotomayor, J.). The majority’s departure from decades of Supreme Court precedent will facilitate the wholesale purchase of our government enterprise by dark money forces.
The Court may cloak its sophistry in elegant phrases, but it is doing as much violence to our Constitutional order as the insurrectionists did on January 6th. Like their Republican counterparts in Congress, the Supreme Court majority has gone all in on minority rule. If the Democrats don’t get rid of the filibuster, we will be forced to conclude that they have too.