Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 5 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 6/12/18

How Did the Supreme Court Give a Green Light to Massive Voter Suppression?

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   6 comments
Author 29155
Follow Me on Twitter     Message John Nichols
Become a Fan
  (24 fans)

From The Nation

Two words: Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Neil Gorsuch
Justice Neil Gorsuch
(Image by commons.wikimedia.org)
  Details   DMCA

When Neil Gorsuch appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 to make a case for his confirmation to serve a life term on the US Supreme Court, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy observed that, "unless we were asking about fishing or basketball, Judge Gorsuch stonewalled and avoided any substantive response. He was excruciatingly evasive. His sworn testimony and his approach to complying with this Committee's historic role in the confirmation process have been patronizing. That is a disservice to the American people. And it is a blight on this confirmation process."

Leahy said the nominee's evasiveness was a particular concern on the voting-rights issues that were raised during the hearing. Gorsuch, said the chamber's senior senator, "provided no answer at all to questions regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County to gut the Voting Rights Act." The same went for questions from Leahy and his fellow senators regarding democracy issues. The questions were asked, but Gorsuch did not answer.

Now Justice Gorsuch has answered. On Monday, the Court released its ruling in the case of Hustad v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, an essential test of the Court's stance regarding voting rights. With the critical 2018 election just months away, the Court's activist majority gave Republican secretaries of state a go-ahead to resume the antidemocratic practice of purging fully qualified voters from registration rolls.

It was a 5-4 decision. Had Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama to serve on the Court, but was then refused a confirmation hearing as part of the machinations by Senate Republicans that eventually landed Gorsuch on the high court, it almost certainly would have been different. There is good reason to believe that a Justice Garland would have refused to send the signal that Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president Kristen Clarke warns is likely to be interpreted "as a green light to purge the registration rolls of legitimately registered voters."

Click Here to Read Whole Article