Selective Originalism and Selective Textualism: How the Roberts Court Repealed the Voting Rights Act
July 7, 2021
David H. Gans is the Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
The Roberts Court continues to issue rulings that harm our democracy. On Thursday, it once again dealt a violent blow to the voter pressure of our nation’s best front-line defensive race.
Voting Rights Act– The crown jewel of the civil rights movement John Lewis and many other freedom fighters fought and shed blood for it-two powerful weapons were established to ensure that all people, regardless of race, enjoy the right to vote in the Constitution: it requires jurisdictions with a long history of voting discrimination to seek advance New voting changes were approved and outcome tests were established to broadly ban state election regulations across the country—a prohibition against discriminatory results, not just discriminatory intent.
Eight years ago, Shelby County v. Holder By canceling the pre-approval requirement Ignore the text and history of Congress’s explicit authority to implement the 15th Amendment’s promises on racial equality in polls, Practice a selective form of originalism.Thursday’s ruling Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee Test results by interpreting their results The core task of equal voting opportunitiesBetween these two rulings, the Supreme Court transformed the landmark statutes that enforce the vibrant multi-ethnic democracy promised by the Constitution into a historical relic that sanctions modern forms of voter suppression. Brnovic Another reminder Rewriting our democratic rules to make it harder to vote is one of the core legacy of the Roberts Court.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is called the outcome test because it prohibits any state election regulations “Cause any U.S. citizen to be deprived of or deprived of the right to vote due to race. The majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito deliberately ignored this language. Instead, Alito relied entirely on the section 2 explaining how to determine the part that violated the outcome test. This part stipulates the responsibility of the “political process”… The participation of citizens of color is not equally open, “because its members have fewer opportunities than other voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Alito insisted on the court’s opinion that “equal and openness” is the “touchstone” under Article 2 and underestimated the clear requirements of the regulations, that is, voters of color should not have “less opportunities” than other voters. He He insisted that “equality of opportunity” is not a “separate requirement” under the bill. He suggested that if the political process is equally open to voters of color, it will be enough. Most people suffer from torture and highly selective textualism. Almost all Section 2 turned a blind eye to the key guarantee of voter equality.
Alito’s majority opinion designed a series of factors that guide the lower courts, all of which are essentially tools used to drive voters out of the courts. If a law simply imposes what Alito calls the usual voting burden, then it will not be challenged. If a law conforms to existing standard practices in 1982, when the outcome test is added to the Voting Rights Act, it is likely to be unquestionable. If the voting rules only impose small differences on voters of color, they cannot be challenged. If the voting rules that are questioned as discriminatory are offset by other voting opportunities, they cannot be questioned. If voting rules serve legitimate government interests, it is likely not to be challenged. As Alito wrote, “[r]A rule backed by strong national interests is unlikely to violate §2. Alito pays special attention to preventing election fraud, calling it a “strong and completely legal national interest” that may “undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the legitimacy of the announced results.” Most people listen to the country’s efforts to prevent fraud. Ignoring the long history of fraud as an excuse for racial discrimination and Lies about voter fraud May be used to undermine the legitimacy of voting, just like in the 2020 election.
Factors listed in Brnovic No foothold can be found in the text and history of the Voting Rights Act or any related statutory interpretation norms. The majority opinion, as Justice Elena Kagan’s brilliant and ardent dissent put it, “is mainly a lawless zone.” On the contrary, most of the work is the majority’s wrong view of the federal system. Most people insist that the Voting Rights Act must be interpreted in order to provide broad leeway for states to regulate the electoral process. Alito’s opinion opposes the view that the court’s application of outcome tests should carefully examine laws that disproportionately deprive voters of color. “The requirement for such close cooperation will invalidate many of the long-standing neutral voting rules, which are reasonable means of pursuing legitimate interests. It will also transfer most of the power over the electoral process from the states to the federal courts.” Most people Failure to implement the equal opportunity mandate of the Voting Rights Act, but to obey the states, to a large extent allows them to ignore the Act’s commitment to a vibrant multi-racial democracy that is open to all regardless of race.
Most people’s view of federalism is chilling and amnesia. The full significance of the “Voting Rights Act” and its implementation of the 15th amendment is to correct the long history of state-supported racial discrimination, which treats citizens of color as second-class citizens and deprives them of their most cherished rights One: voting rights. The 15th Amendment changed the Constitution by authorizing Congress to enact preventive measures (such as those contained in the Voting Rights Act) to remove arbitrary obstacles that prevent citizens of color from fully participating in our democracy. The non-interference of the majority has completely reversed the constitution and voting rights bill.
We have a very conservative Supreme Court that claims to follow the text and history they lead in terms of the constitution and statutory interpretation. Shelby County with Brnovic Show the frequency of bankruptcy of these commitments. The Roberts Court is willing to bend the law in any way possible, make the right to vote a second-class right, and overturn the democratic promise of our Constitution that is open to all.