Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Worse than Citizens United: How the court’s latest democratic death spiral should have gone differently

Worse than Citizens United: How the court’s latest democratic death spiral should have gone differently

Though the court has shirked its responsibility in the gerrymandering decision, a silver lining of state activity is already emerging, writes Greytak.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Greytak is senior counsel for RepresentUs, a right-left anti-corruption group.

Miserable. Appalling. Doomsday scenario.

Legal experts have had their way with the Supreme Court's instantly infamous conclusion on June 27 that the Constitution serves as no barrier to politicians rigging elections by cherry-picking who votes for them. Perhaps most colorful were takes from The Washington Post and Slate, which opted for WWE-style cage match imagery, opining that the court had "body-slammed" and dealt a "body blow" to American democracy. Yet it was two former lawmakers — a Republican from Tennessee and a Democrat from New York — who lapped the pack by invoking the Voldemort of modern Supreme Court decisions.

"As Bad as Citizens United," proclaimed the Atlantic headline for Zach Wamp and Steve Israel's piece.

If these pronouncements sound like more of the same from our ever-churning Outrage-Industrial Complex, like familiar mile-markers on our collective race to the bottom, that's an unfortunate coincidence. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause isn't as bad as its decision in Citizens United. It's worse. And perhaps worst of all, the court knew better.


Where previous gut-punch decisions like Citizens United (legalizing unlimited corporate money in elections) and Shelby County(removing government oversight of voting rights restrictions) made our democracy more susceptible to corruption, Rucho looked a known, corrupting practice in the eye — a practice that four of the nine justices said amounts to "rigging elections" — and gave it a final legal blessing. Politicians, according to Justice Elena Kagan's dissent, had "beat democracy."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The court could have — and has — done things very differently in the past. Instead of ducking its constitutional responsibility by refusing to rein in partisan gerrymandering, the court could have rolled up its sleeves and done the hard work our democracy needed. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time: A decade ago, the John Roberts-led court dove headfirst into a different democracy debacle, its decision spurring dozens of states to positive action as a result. And fortunately, though the court has shirked its responsibility this time around, a silver lining of state activity is already emerging.

The instructive story begins in 1998, when Massey Energy, once the fourth largest producer of coal in the United States, was sued by Hugh Caperton, the president of a West Virginia mining company. Caperton claimed that Massey Energy had fraudulently canceled a supply contract with his company, effectively running it out of business. A West Virginia jury agreed, and awarded Caperton's company $50 million in damages.

Massey Energy appealed the decision to the highest court in the state. But Massey's CEO (and future U.S. Senate candidate), Don Blankenship, went even further.

With Massey's appeal en route to West Virginia's Supreme Court, Blankenship spent some $3 million on the election for its newest justice. Once on the bench, his candidate cast the deciding vote in a decision overturning the $50 million verdict.

Blankenship's egregious spending caught the attention of the Supreme Court, and the ensuing case, Caperton v. Massey, produced an outsized outcome. Prior to Caperton, if a party to a court case wanted to question the fairness of a judge, they needed to show that the judge was actually biased in their case. But Blankenship's excesses, according to the Supreme Court, presented an "extreme" and "extraordinary" situation. In response, in 2009 the court threw out the West Virginia Supreme Court's decision and crafted a new rule: "Extreme facts" like Caperton's warranted judicial intervention, and going forward, any court decisions colored by similar "extreme facts" would be thrown out, too.

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, raising some 40 questions as to how, and whether, the new rule would work. Yet the sun still rose. The earth kept turning. Caperton hadn't undermined democracy. It had strengthened it. And within a few years, dozens of states went on to revise or revisit their own rules on the issue.

It also offered a roadmap: Couldn't districts that were the product of "extreme" partisan gerrymandering be thrown out, too? The court wouldn't be starting from scratch: Tire-kicked standards for gauging "extreme" have been provided by the dozen by researchers, academics, and the reform community in Rucho, and other courts have done their own work devising standards.

But Roberts remained inquisitive, raising nearly 20 questions in his opinion holding that partisan gerrymandering was "beyond the reach" of the federal courts.

Contrary to Roberts' Socraticisms, the Supreme Court is constitutionally obligated to uphold the principles that define our democracy. And where Rucho missed this step, reaction to it from the states may be far more consequential than even Caperton. Anti-gerrymandering campaigns are already coming together in Virginia, Arkansas, and New Hampshire, providing immediate vindication to Roberts' disingenuous observation that "the states are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts." This, on the heels of a banner year for reform, where voters impatient with the court's inaction passed anti-gerrymandering laws in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, and Colorado.

Rucho makes clear that it's time to go all in on a state-by-state strategy for unrigging America's elections — a strategy that doesn't rely on an indifferent Supreme Court.

Worse for our democracy than Citizens United? Yes. But better at setting a clear path to fix it? Absolutely.

Read More

Georgia voting stickers
Megan Varner/Getty Images

Experts pan Georgia’s hand-count rule as we prep for Election Overtime

On Sept. 17, Georgia’s election board voted to hand-count all ballots cast at polling places across the state’s 159 counties on Election Day, contrary to the legal opinion of the Georgia attorney general and the advice of the secretary of state.

Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican, challenged the validity of the decision in a letter to the elections board:

"There are thus no provisions in the statutes cited in support of these proposed rules that permit counting the number of ballots by hand at the precinct level prior to delivery to the election superintendent for tabulation. Accordingly, these proposed rules are not tethered to any statute — and are, therefore, likely the precise type of impermissible legislation that agencies cannot do."
Keep ReadingShow less
sign that reads "Keep it simple"

It shouldn't be hard to understand the wording of a ballot measure.

ayk7/Getty Images

Ballot measures need to be written in plain language

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf’s rights, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide.

Last week, the Ohio Ballot Board finalized the language of Issue 1, a constitutional amendment dealing with how the state’s political boundary maps are drawn.

Keep ReadingShow less
people voting
Getty Images

Ranked-choice voting is heading for its biggest year ever

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

The Spirit of 2024 may soon manifest as “the best of times and the worst of times.”

This could end up being the year that Donald Trump returns to the Oval Office and rules with a vengeful wrath, further eroding America’s democratic institutions and our standing in the world. And 2024 could end up being the breakout year for ranked-choice voting, the most popular political reform in the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress speaking outside the Capitol

Speaker Mike Johnson (right) and Rep. Chip Roy conduct a news conference at the Capitol to introduce the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act on May 8.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

A bipartisan take on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

Lempert is an intern with the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Program. Orey is director of the Elections Project at BPC. Weil is executive director of BPC’s Democracy Program.

The House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. Introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the SAVE Act requires individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The bill has not advanced through the Senate.

Both parties agree that voter registration should permit all eligible citizens — and only eligible citizens — to register and vote. Although instances of noncitizen registration and voting are rare, the SAVE Act’s goal of ensuring that only citizens can register to vote is important. But there are easier, more cost-effective ways to improve voter registration that don’t create new barriers for eligible voters.

Here’s what you need to know about requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign
Grace Cary

Bill would require ranked-choice voting for congressional elections

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

Three members of Congress are hoping to bring ranked-choice voting, which has been growing at the state and municipal levels, to congressional elections.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) on Thursday introduced the Ranked Choice Voting Act, which would change how all members of Congress are elected. In addition, the bill would authorize funding to assist states to help them educate voters and implement RCV-compliant systems for primary and general elections by 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less