While I agree that voter ID is probably fairly popular and that Democrats probably need to eventually find a way to work with it rather than against it, this part is about as meaningful as saying that a majority of Republicans support universal background checks for gun purchases. They only support it because they haven’t received loud-enough signalling from their side that they’re supposed to oppose it. The idea of people deciding how to vote based on ~the issues~ is nice and all, but more often than not people decide the issues based on how they vote.
There was a voter ID referendum in Minnesota that started out with 80% support in opinion polling, but Democrats were able to pound into their voters that it was bad, and the proposal failed. The same thing happened to background checks in Maine. Huge support, then there was a loud and highly-visible campaign, and the supposed bipartisan consensus vanished.
Honestly, I think this ruling takes a lot of wind out of the sails of Democrat’s efforts to pass the For the People Act or other federal voting rights protections. The Court has basically signalled that they’re going to invalidate any federal attempt to intervene in state voting laws. Even if Joe Manchin were to have an epiphany and vote to eliminate the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation tomorrow, it would be stayed until after the 2022 election and substantially gutted by the Supreme Court.
I fear that we’ve got a dark time ahead. Right now Republican states are taking what are basically nibbles at voting rights. The Supreme Court has given them permission to take much larger bites.
Congress should still try. They should end the filibuster and try to enact laws that at least attempt to enforce the law consistent with whatever powers that they may have under Article I. There is a long history of federal regulation and oversight of states in federal elections dating back to 1842.
Having said that, I share your cynicism, particularly when you consider that in spite of this established track record of federal oversight, the conservative justices have gone out of their way to invalidate such regulation on the basis of specious claims of “states’ rights” with regard to voting procedures and “free speech” in campaign finance matters.
At the very least, with preclearance as a vehicle to stop voter suppression rather than forcing challenges to voter suppression to go through the courts, it means that if the courts want to nullify voting rights regulation from the feds they would either have to utterly strike down preclearance or find reasons to force voting laws through the process with the preliminary rulings rather than let voter suppression occur by inaction while cases go through the courts.
Also I realize this isn’t going to happen, but if there genuinely is no way to protect voting rights under the current court system, it’s imperative that the Democrats pack the court. Democracy is just more important.
Yeah, and this is the trap that Biden finds himself in; he won in part by promising not to be a radical. Packing the Court seems like a radical step, and I suppose that it is, but this is an instance in which radical action is needed to stop a radical assault on democracy.
That might be, but it won’t stop them from claiming victory and taking control of government’s machinery. It’s not like the Trumpists concealed their designs on authoritarianism and I don’t recall seeing mass protests and mass resignations of civil servants. Most people want jobs, look forward to retirement, and understand that challenging authority has consequences, some of which they might not be ready to pay.
It’s not just challenging but also stalling and obstructing and everything of the like. It’s hard enough to deal with a recalcitrant minority; try governing with an aggrieved majority hating your every legislative action. Unpopular rules are hard to enforce.
I agree, but I can’t help but think that at least a few of the Republicans have seen how China dealt with Hong Kong’s activists, how Putin deals with his, how Erdogan and Lukashenko deal with theirs. Thuggery can work.
The Trump tax cut was deeply unpopular – Republicans passed it anyway, and it’s still on the books. Here in Texas our Republican Legislature passed bills allowing permitless carry and restricting abortion that polls show are unpopular. Didn’t stop them from doing it.
Republicans aren’t stupid enough to govern in a way that’s going to result in an “aggrieved majority hating your every legislative action.” Most voters simply aren’t paying attention to begin with. And even if Congress passes things they don’t like, they’ll roll over and get used to it. Republicans won’t take the big steps that would genuinely inspire widespread opposition – at least not at first.
You have a point - I think that the phenomenon we’re dealing with now is in no small part attributable to a social apathy and lack of ability to imagine or foresee where procedural warfare can take us. We’re living with the residual of decades of nationalistic propaganda, believing that we’re somehow exceptional and that authoritarianism can’t happen here. People don’t make the connection between political obstruction and its damaging impact on democracy; they just assume it’s the usual bad politics and that bad politics exist pretty much everywhere on the planet.
But the “electorate” only matters when there are fair elections. And Republicans plan to render elections meaningless, so how will the opposition of the electorate interfere? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
This is hard to explain without sounding like a crazed insurrectionist myself but power doesn’t flow from just seizing the reins of power if it doesn’t have popular support in support of it.
Trump supporters complained for four years about obstructionism at every level of society and government because they forgot that a majority of the electorate voted against him. They misjudged how much anti-Trumpers saw him as the product of a seriously flawed system, one that allowed such a power hungry and odious individual as he was to win the nation’s highest office.
Now Republicans are gearing up to simply toss opposing votes cast for their opponents and counting on a Supreme Court to legitimize their actions when they do. They may lose the popular vote by ten million but still “win” by skirting the rules. I just don’t think they can pass an agenda under those circumstances without running into massive resistance from everyone whose vote was negated. Not just riots and protests but everyday pushback on things that go against the will of most people.
I guess you’ve just got more faith than me. Like I said, the Republicans aren’t going to enact an obviously anti-majoritarian agenda all at once. You know what they say about boiling a frog.
The thing is, authoritarians don’t need to have a majority supporting them. They just need to not have a majority opposing them. And there are an awful lot of people who just don’t care one way or the other.
From the 1880s until the 1930s, the labor movement regularly fought - and died - for better working conditions. It took 50 years before they finally found enough people in power willing to take up their cause. And that only happened because the Great Depression happened and there was no safety net.
More specifically, they need to avoid having a significant number of their own allies defecting and joining the opposition. Authoritarian regimes go to considerable lengths to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Some commentator on NPR highlighted the contradictory reasoning the majority used in these two cases.
When it came to voting rights, it didn’t matter what the effect was all that mattered was that the purpose of the law had a fig leaf of legitimacy.
But when it came to hiding donors, it didn’t matter whether the purpose of the law was legitimate what mattered was that it might have a “Chilling effect” on free money speech.
Also is it my faulty memory, but wasn’t one of the rationales given by the justices in the Citizen’s United decision was that Congress would pass laws ensuring that the donations were transparent and so wouldn’t be corrupting?