Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Oregon remap bid dies at Supreme Court, now 0-7 on easier democracy during Covid

Supreme Court
Montana's tough donor disclosure law survives at Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Supreme Court has extended its unbroken string of rulings against making it easier to be part of the democratic process during the pandemic.

The justices on Tuesday blocked a lower court's ruling that it should be easier for Oregon's redistricting reform advocates to collect signatures during the national health crisis. The decision means there won't be a referendum on the November ballot that would take the power to draw congressional and legislative maps away from the Democratic powers in Salem and turn it over to a new citizens' redistricting commission — the top goal of crusaders against partisan gerrymandering.

It's the latest of seven cases since this spring where the conservative-majority high court has ruled against groups seeking relaxed ballot rules because of the coronavirus. It has not ruled once in favor of such an effort.

The group People Not Politicians had gone to federal court to seek permission to use the internet and the mail to gather the necessary 150,000 signatures on its ballot measure petitions, arguing the social distancing norms of Covid-19 made it impossible to comply with state's in-person requirements. It did not get exactly what it wanted, but instead a federal judge told Oregon to either accept as sufficient the 59,000 valid signatures the coalition had gathered by the July deadline or else extend the deadline until the middle of this month.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Supreme Court did not give any reasons for granting the state's request and blocking that decision, which is typical when the justices act on such emergency appeals. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, however, that they would have upheld the lower court's relaxation of the rules.

Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum argued in her appeal that the lower court ruling "effectively rewrites the provisions governing how the Oregon Constitution can be amended through an initiative" and "threatens to enshrine permanently in the state constitution an amendment that does not meet state requirements."

Federal Judge Michael McShane of Eugene had described things very differently in his opinion five weeks ago.

"Because the right to petition the government is at the core of First Amendment protections, which includes the right of initiative," he wrote, "the current signature requirements in Oregon law are unconstitutional as applied to these specific plaintiffs seeking to engage in direct democracy under these most unusual of times."

The Supreme Court has issued six other orders in voting disputes since the Covid-19 outbreak began, in general relying on the court's own precedent that the judiciary should wade into fights over election procedures sparingly — especially when election day is near.

The most prominent decision was the first, one the eve of a Wisconsin primary, when the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines to reverse a federal judge's order expanding the window for receiving absentee ballots. The result was that thousands of mailed-in votes arrived too late to be counted and were discarded.

The court has also:

  • Rejected a bid by the Texas Democratic Party to force the state to allow no-excuse absentee voting for everyone because of Covid-19, on the grounds that opening the process wide only to voters older than 65 amounts to age discirmination.
  • Refused to make absentee balloting easier in Alabama until the end of the pandemic, keeping in place the requirement that mailed ballots include an affidavit signed by a notary or two witnesses.
  • Sided with state officials in Utah by blocking a lower court ruling that would have eased the requirements for getting an education-related referendum on the ballot during the health emergency.
  • Rejected an appeal to make Ohio accept electronic signatures from residents seeking to place voter initiatives — including one to raise the state's minimum wage and another making an array of election process changes — on the ballot this year.
  • Preserved an appeals court ruling preventing hundreds of thousands of convicted felons from voting in Florida, at least in next week's primary and possibly in November as well. The case precedes the pandemic, centering on a 2018 referendum restoring voting rights to felons after their probation and parole — but since complicated by a state law requiring them to also repay financial obligations.

Redistricting typically occurs once every 10 years, right after the census details — down to the neighborhood — where the population has shifted, soared or shrunk. So the advocacy group in Oregon argued that its effort would be meaningless for an entire decade unless they got on the ballot in November.

With the Oregon effort now dead, Virginia and North Dakota are for now the only two states that will decide in November whether the next collection of maps will be crafted by independent panels. An effort to get a commission measure on the ballot is still alive in Arkansas. On the other hand, Missouri voters will decide whether to undo a redistricting initiative enacted two years ago.

For now, 14 states are sure to use independent commissions to draw the next legislative districts lines, and eight will do so for congressional districts.

The effort to limit partisanship in Oregon's political mapmaking got started after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 a year ago that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to the practice — but said ballot measures would be a totally permissible way to curb such gerrymandering.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less