CLC Releases New Analysis Highlighting the Roberts Court’s Inconsistent Application of the Law in Democracy Cases

In a new analysis released today, The Supreme Court's Role in Undermining American Democracy, Campaign Legal Center discusses how the Roberts Court's record in cases affecting American democracy is consistently anti-democratic, reversing decades of work by prior Courts that sought to perfect and protect our democracy. The report also discusses how the justices, in order to consistently reach anti-democratic results, have selectively and inconsistently applied core judicial and interpretive principles like judicial restraint and deference, devotion to text and respect for precedent.

It is difficult to pinpoint any principled and legitimate through-line in these decisions, the report states.

“The U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has hit rock bottom,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, who has argued 21 cases before the Court. “The Court’s track record on democracy is particularly woeful and concerning, given that a strong democracy is essential to a functioning America. The Roberts Court repeatedly tells voters that they can turn to the political process for relief from rulings that they may disagree with, but then in its rulings, increasingly makes it more difficult for voters — particularly voters of color — to participate in that process.”

The Court has always played a prominent role in democracy. The President’s Commission on the Court acknowledged the Court’s role in democracy and its perceived legitimacy as key factors in the recent debates surrounding court reform. In recent public statements, the justices themselves realize they are facing a legitimacy problem.

Only 25% of Americans have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the failure of any consistent legal rationale rightfully draws into question the Roberts Court’s legitimacy.

The report asks, “If the Roberts’ Court is not guided by some coherent judicial philosophy, are the justices simply aligning with the political party of the president who appointed them? Or is it that members of the current majority are averse to a participatory democracy in which every eligible citizen votes?"

The report concludes that the only potential remedy is a strong push back from Congress – the institution that the Framers intended to "check and balance” an aggressive and abusive Supreme Court.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Atlanta, GA – In a blow to Georgia voters and the civic engagement groups who support them, a district court ruled yesterday to keep burdensome restrictions on the distribution of absentee ballot applications in place pending further developments.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) brought the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of VoteAmerica, the Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information. The lawsuit challenges provisions of Georgia’s S.B. 202 that violate the groups’ First Amendment right to persuade and assist Georgia voters to participate in elections by distributing absentee ballot applications. In the 2020 election cycle alone, these civic organizations’ encouragement and assistance enabled over half a million Georgia voters to participate through absentee voting securely and conveniently. Georgia seeks to restrict those successful efforts, reducing voters’ access to our democracy.

Early in June, CLC attorneys went to court to argue that the restrictions on distributing absentee ballot applications should be blocked from going into effect while the case proceeds to trial. This would have allowed civic engagement groups to utilize their most effective methods of communicating their pro-voting and pro-absentee mail voting messages ahead of the 2022 general election. Since the request was denied, the restrictive and unconstitutional law will remain in effect pending further developments.

“This decision muffles the voices of nonpartisan organizations seeking to engage vulnerable communities in our political process,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Our elections should be safe and accessible. Nonpartisan civic engagement groups help make that a reality by communicating with and assisting voters who want to cast an absentee ballot.”

"This decision severely limits VoteAmerica's ability to effectively communicate true and enfranchising information to Georgians," said Daniel McCarthy, Vice President of Operations for VoteAmerica. "Instead, we're being forced to provide confusing, inaccurate and false information to voters. This court’s decision to allow a state to compel civic engagement groups like ours to mislead Georgia's voters is not only disappointing, it's downright shameful.

“The decision by the court to allow S.B. 202 to go into effect in the 2022 elections is a major setback for Georgia’s voters and their access to vote by mail,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC) and Center for Voter Information (CVI). “But the fight is not over: we will keep pushing in court to strike down the dangerous provisions in S.B. 202 that would inhibit civic engagement groups from helping Georgians make their voices heard. At VPC and CVI, we’ll keep working to protect our democracy and ensure every American can access the ballot box.”

In March 2021, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed S.B. 202 into law. The omnibus measure makes numerous changes to Georgia’s election system, specifically targeting access to absentee voting. These changes to Georgia’s election code prohibit the Secretary of State, county election officials and other government officials from sending absentee voting applications directly to any voter unless the voter specifically requests one. The law then also significantly restricts civic organizations from distributing absentee voting applications to voters. Georgia enforces these restrictions on civic organizations by imposing steep civil penalties and threatening the risk of criminal prosecution for any individual violation.

Learn more about the lawsuit here.  

After allowing Louisiana to use maps that dilute Black voting power, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case that could fundamentally alter the role of state courts in protecting voters

Washington, D.C. – Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a redistricting case in North Carolina that is based on the fringe “independent state legislature” theory. The decision to take up Moore v. Harper is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that will have long-term consequences for the health of American democracy.

“Voters should be the ones who decide elections, not politicians in state legislatures. The Supreme Court’s decision to take up next term the fringe independent state legislature theory could shield state legislatures from being checked by state courts in matters of voting laws. This could pave the way for bad faith politicians to manipulate election maps and laws to suit their political interests instead of the interests of voters.

The Supreme Court issued another blow to voters on Tuesday in the Ardoin v. Robinson decision that blocked the creation of a second Black opportunity congressional district in Louisiana, further undermining the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act and denying voters of color the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Campaign Legal Center remains committed to achieving a democracy that is inclusive, transparent and accountable so that voters can have a voice in the political process and feel confident their vote counts.”

Background:

This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper next term. The case focuses on gerrymandered district maps in North Carolina that the North Carolina Supreme Court previously struck down for violating the state’s constitution.

The basis of the argument in Moore v. Harper is a fringe legal concept that state legislatures have the ultimate authority under the U.S. Constitution to set and change election laws, even if those laws violate the state’s constitution. Political actors invoked the so-called independent state legislature theory ahead of the January 6 attack on our country, in an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court also blocked a trial court’s order requiring the creation of a second Black opportunity congressional district in Louisiana in Ardoin v. Robinson. A panel of the Fifth Circuit had already reviewed the case and denied the state’s request to block the ruling. As a result of the Supreme Court’s unexplained order, Louisiana voters will vote under racially discriminatory maps for the 2022 election.