Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan criticized the high court’s recent election-related rulings Tuesday, arguing that the justices have failed to account for how their decisions affect the functioning of American democracy.
Kagan’s remarks, made Tuesday at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C., come less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 elections, when voters will decide control of the House and Senate.
The liberal justice pointed to recent decisions limiting the scope of federal voting rights protections and striking down campaign finance restrictions, both of which she opposed in dissents during the court’s most recent term.
“The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works,” Kagan said. The court “has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should,” she added.
Louisiana v. Callais, a major case decided in June, involved a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map and the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The case raised questions about when states can be required to draw electoral districts that give minority voters a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.
Kagan argued that allowing states to draw districts that effectively eliminate many voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates is “very destructive of our democracy.”
Kagan also criticized the court’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which concerned federal restrictions on coordination between political parties and candidates. The case addressed limits on how much national party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates, a central issue in campaign finance regulation.
The rulings came as both parties poured money into competitive congressional races ahead of the midterms, with control of Congress at stake. The outcome will determine which party controls the legislative agenda for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term.
Kagan said the court’s approach to election law risks deepening political divisions in an already polarized country.
The failure to adequately address the consequences of its decisions is “making what I think is unfortunately a too polarized country even more so,” she said.
“I do think it’s just about the most important thing that the court does,” Kagan said of election law.
She said voting rights were “foundational,” and argued that a healthy political system provides the basis for resolving disputes across a range of policy areas.
GAVIN NEWSOM SAYS TRUMP DOJ INVESTIGATION WON’T HAVE CHILLING IMPACT ON 2028 RUN: ‘QUITE THE CONTRARY’
“If you basically get democracy down, if you get a well-functioning, healthy political system, then you can count on that political system for a wide range of outcomes,” she said.
Kagan spoke with Catholic University law professor J. Joel Alicea, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, who has generally sided with the court’s conservative majority in the cases Kagan criticized.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
