Justices Rule On Voting Rights & Donor Disclosure | OK Breyer, Your Move

July 1, 2021

 Today the Supreme Court closed out its term, handing down two big-ticket decisions before taking off for summer. One of these decisions involved the Voting Rights Act, and justices ruled along ideological lines to uphold voting restrictions in Arizona. The 6-3 decision, with all six conservative members of the court in the majority, was the most significant voting rights case since 2013 when the court gutted part of the VRA. This time, the justices found that Arizona’s GOP-backed restrictions on early ballot collection and where absentee ballots may be cast do not violate the VRA — which bans regulations that result in discrimination. A federal appeals court had previously found that the state’s rules did violate the VRA because they disproportionately impacted minorities. JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO wrote for the court and noted, “Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting.'” 

All three liberal justices voted against the Supreme Court’s voting rights decision. JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN wrote in her dissent, “What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.'”

John Fritze with USA Today notes the Supreme Court’s decision landed today “as voting rights and baseless allegations of widespread fraud have become political flashpoints.” He reports, “The Justice Department, meanwhile, recently announced it will beef up its civil rights unit as part of an aggressive effort to fight policies and legislation that restrict voter access. ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND said the department intends to double the enforcement staff of the civil rights unit, though the ability of that division to do its work could be affected by the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Garland announced this month that the administration is suing Georgia over a contentious state law that federal officials say restricts Black voters’ access to the polls. That lawsuit, filed in. federal district court in Georgia, relies on the same section of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the Arizona case.”

The Supreme Court’s second decision of the day involved a California law requiring nonprofits to file a list of high-paying donors with the state. Justices ruled 6-3 — again dividing along ideological lines — to strike down the California law and side with rich donors and their desire to remain anonymous. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR wrote in her dissent, “Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye. Regulated entities who wish to avoid their obligations can do so by vaguely waving toward First Amendment ‘privacy concerns.’ … It does not matter if not a single individual risks experiencing a single reprisal from disclosure, or if the vast majority of those affected would happily comply. That is all irrelevant to the Court’s determination that California’s Schedule B requirement is facially unconstitutional. Neither precedent nor common sense supports such a result.”

“An effort by progressives to expand the Supreme Court is starting to fizzle as a presidential commission tasked with reviewing the controversial proposal saps earlier momentum. The stalled progress isn’t exactly unwelcome to Democratic leaders in Washington who are happy to avoid a fight over court expansion, which could end up being a political liability for moderate Democratic candidates in next year’s midterm elections.” That’s Alexander Bolton writing in The Hill that efforts to expand the court are slowing, which is all good for Congressional Democrats who would rather stay focused on landing a deal on infrastructure.

Speaking of reforming the court, PRESIDENT BIDEN’S commission on reforming the judiciary held its first public hearing with witnesses on Wednesday. Charlie Savage with The New York Times reports little time was spent on court expansion. “Instead, the hearing largely focused on other ideas. In particular, the witnesses extensively debated ideas for limiting the court’s power of judicial review — such as by stripping its jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to particular laws, requiring a supermajority vote of the justices to strike down an act of Congress, or giving lawmakers the power to override rulings invalidating statutes.”

“The Supreme Court will issue its final decisions of the term this week, which raises the question of whether any of the justices — to be specific, one particular justice — will take the opportunity to announce their retirement. We’re talking about STEPHEN G. BREYER, and from the hints we’ve been able to glean, chances are that he won’t be stepping down, at least not right now. But the saga over whether and how he might do so is yet more proof that the system of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices has become a problem that demands a solution.” That’s Paul Waldman arguing in The Washington Post in favor of term limits for Supreme Court justices. He notes, “As the increasing fear (from Democrats) and hope (from Republicans) about the timing of Breyer’s eventual departure is amply demonstrating, the system of lifetime appointments is making so much about our politics and our legal system worse. It’s time to change it.”

“Relatively few people are talking about it right now, but Thursday (and perhaps the days to come) could be one of the most pivotal moments in recent Supreme Court history.” Aaron Blake with The Washington Post notes that now is the time (or in the coming days) we’re likely to get clarity on the future makeup of the court. In other words, we should know soon whether JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER will retire or keep on keeping on. Blake: “If Breyer were to retire, history suggests it could come relatively quickly. That’s because 10 of the past 11 justices to retire from the court either announced their retirement at the end of a term or made their retirements effective then. The only exception is WILLIAM BRENNAN, who announced his immediate retirement on July 20, 1990, due to health issues. Even that one, though, came shortly after the term ended.”