Are the Guardians of Democracy Doing Their Job?

Type:

News

by Diane Dimperio
LWV of Alachua County Voter Services Member

Published February 16, 2023

Until recently most of us did not spend much time thinking about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). We may have noted some decisions they announced at the end of their annual session. We may remember learning about the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Our government is based on a balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Supreme Court Justices are trained in the law and, unlike the executive and legislative members, are expected to be non-partisan, to avoid political pressure and other influences, and are appointed for life.

In a presentation to the League of Women Voters of Alachua County (LWVAC) on January 26th, Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, the Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in U.S. Constitutional Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, talked about a SCOTUS which seems to increasingly reflect the values and viewpoints of the presidents who appointed them. The majority of judges on the current Court describe themselves as textualists/originalists, which means they interpret the Constitution the way they think was meant at the time it was written. As it turns out, judging within this framework results in decisions that reflect conservative values.

In the first session with this majority, the Justices handed down several decisions celebrated by conservatives. At least one of the decisions overturned what was considered “settled law”. For example, they ruled abortion is not a right protected by the constitution, the EPA is not empowered to make decisions to limit harmful emissions, and the State of New York is not allowed to restrict carrying firearms.

Professor Lidsky also discussed data describing how the public's impression of Justices has declined over the years. The most recent poll shows only 25% of respondents have “a lot of” confidence in SCOTUS. The decisions made in the 2021-2022 session have accelerated the public perception of the Justices as political appointees who have a lifetime tenure.

The Court has accepted several controversial cases in the 2022-23 session. For example, cases to be heard relate to voting rights, affirmative action, and immigration. One of the cases Professor Lidsky discussed, Moore v. Harper, has been a concern of voting rights activists, including the League Of Women Voters, and legal scholars. It has been described as the greatest threat to Democracy in modern times. In this case, the North Carolina (NC) Legislature drew a politically gerrymandered congressional map which was overturned by the NC Supreme Court because it violated the state constitution. The NC Legislature appealed to SCOTUS to overturn the decision made by the state court claiming the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures the unabridged right to draw congressional maps. Although ruling in favor of the NC Legislature would overturn precedent established in several prior cases, four Justices voted to accept the case. It was argued in December and a ruling is expected to be released in June or early July.

As a result of the 2022 election, the composition of the NC Supreme Court changed, and conservative judges are now in the majority. Recently, in an unprecedented move, they voted to rehear the case. We are now facing the possibility that the NC Supreme Court may overturn its own decision and approve the map drawn by the legislature. How would a change in the ruling of the NC Supreme Court affect the case already heard by SCOTUS? This is a historically significant lawsuit threatening democracy which now includes a bizarre twist.

We are looking forward to hearing more about this case and invite you to join us as Professor Lidsky, with Alan Beck, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at Santa Fe College and Donna Waller, Retired Professor of Political Science and LWVAC Nominating Committee Chair, discuss the Moore v. Harper case in a panel discussion called, "The Case Against Democracy: Moore v. Harper and the Threat of Electoral Mayhem". The event occurs on Thursday, March 2nd from 2-4:00 p.m. at the Santa Fe College northwest campus, Building WA, Room WA-108. It is co-sponsored by the Santa Fe College Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences and Educational Programs and is free and open to the public. There is ample free parking nearby.

To learn more about what is happening at the Supreme Court here are several of the sources Professor Lidsky recommended: