Polarization, division, vilification -- all hallmarks of current American politics. Newt Gingrich, Fox News Channel, and the contemporary Republican Party are among those individuals and institutions we must credit for where we find ourselves. Donald Trump rode a wave going back decades.
But there is a sine qua non mischief-maker we should not overlook: the Republican-appointed majority on the United States Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has inexorably moved, step by corrupt step, to advance the political interests of the Republican Party in several related areas. This lurch has been highly consequential.
Voter suppression: the decisions undermining voting rights, the 14th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 hark back as early as Shelby County v. Holder (2013) with a 5-4 divided opinion. There have been many cases since then. Republican-led states have put up obstacles for voters (aimed at voters in Democratic areas), created fraudulent narratives about ineligible immigrants voting, and (a lie going back decades, but amped way up since Trump) alleged voter fraud in Democratic cities without a modicum of evidence.
Gerrymandering: a string of decisions that invite state legislatures (most notoriously Republican-led states, such as Wisconsin) to remain in power, even though clear majorities of the states' voters cast ballots for the opposing party. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), decided 5-4, the court's Republicans declared gerrymandering claims "nonjusticiable," forbidding federal courts from resolving such cases. Henceforth, no one could claim (under the Constitution, the Voting Rights Amendments, or federal law) that any gerrymandering (no matter how extreme) had gone too far, never mind the rights of American voters. The mischief continues, such as in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2023), decided 6-3 (with Trump/McConnell's three new justices forming a Republican supermajority).
Campaign finance: another string of decisions that have opened the floodgates for big money into our elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is the most notorious example. The 5-4 majority opinion of the court assured us that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
The Roberts Court can be counted on, in each of these areas, to advance the interests of the Republican Party. Never mind the Constitution, federal legislation enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive Branch, or the rights of American citizens to vote, to have their votes apportioned fairly, and to expect reasonable limits on the corrupting influence of big money in political campaigns. (Elon Musk can thank SCOTUS for permitting his massive contributions into 2024 campaigns, from Trump to Republican Congressional candidates.)
We could not have arrived where we are, in 2024, without the active engagement of the partisan Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. With a different agenda, focused on conservative judicial principles, adherence to the Constitution, and respect for the rights of American voters, the court would have ruled differently. And then the Republican Party would not have found the same measure of electoral success in peddling division, hatred, anger, and lies. Instead, the party would have had to be responsive to majority opinion. We would still have red states, but the anti-democratic (small-d) cheating would be rarer, and nationally things would look different. The MAGA playbook works best with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and corrupt dollars in place. The Roberts Court has methodically, with malice aforethought crafted the conditions that have sabotaged democratic guardrails and produced our dysfunctional political system.
This morning the Republican supermajority, with an order that revealed the three Democratic-appointed members "would deny the application," overruled a federal court that blocked Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Younkin's purge of the voting rolls -- much more likely to purge eligible voters, than ineligible -- with an election less than a week away. All par for the course with the Roberts Court.
[Photo of the webpage of the Washington Post, which reported on this story.]