New York Times.

Developments in recent weeks signaled that some members of the court think there is more work to be done in removing legal guardrails governing elections. There are now signs that court is considering striking down or severely constraining the remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, a towering achievement of the civil rights movement that has protected the rights of minority voters since it was enacted 60 years ago last week.

Taken together, the court’s actions in election cases in recent years have shown great tolerance for partisan gamesmanship and great skepticism about federal laws on campaign spending and minority rights. The court’s rulings have been of a piece with its conservative wing’s jurisprudential commitments: giving states leeway in many realms, insisting on an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment and casting a skeptical eye on government racial classifications. . . .

Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Roberts court may be moving in the opposite direction.

“At least some of the conservative justices on the court seem ready to turn the clock back to the early 1960s,” he said, “when courts imposed very little constraints on the most blatant power grabs, and before Congress exercised its constitutional powers to protect voting rights.” . . .

Holding Section 2 unconstitutional could be a boon for Republicans, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard, as it would allow states to eliminate minority-opportunity districts altogether.

That would make it easy, he said, to draw completely Republican maps in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and elsewhere.Even if the court stops short of holding Section 2 unconstitutional, it could do great damage to it in another case the court may consider in the term that starts in October. A theory recently adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit says that only the government, not voters and other private parties, can sue to enforce the provision.

https://x.com/RickPildes/status/1954187436021432390

Fix the Court posts an audio recording of Justice Sotomayor speaking at an interview at the University of Zurich in July of 2024. Apparently, Fix the Court just obtained this recording recently. A Justice’s talk at a university is usually a public event, but sometimes these events are done under Chatham House rules, meaning that the remarks are not supposed to be repeated. I don’t know what the context was in this respect for this interview or why the audio has just now become available.

According to the transcript, her comments about term limits for the Court included these remarks:

In the American system, the problem with a term limit is how will they institute it, because I am promised my job for life, and that can’t be taken away constitutionally — I don’t believe even with a constitutional amendment — because you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you’ve earned.

So that means that a current court at the moment these term limits exist, those justices will be there for as long as they want, so you might not get the value of term limits in the United States because of that inherent difficulty.

I do not agree that it would be unconstitutional to adopt term limits via a constitutional amendment that would apply to the sitting Justices. But for those who think the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of a statute imposing term limits on the sitting Justices, these remarks should certainly be sobering.

Bolts Magazine:

Seattle is poised to continue its experiment in public campaign financing. Voters on Tuesday appear to have renewed the city’s democracy vouchers program, which provides each adult Seattle resident with four $25 vouchers they can donate to local candidates of their choice. 

The ballot measure, which leads by 17 percentage points in the count as of Friday evening, will generate $4.5 million in property taxes a year to fund the program for the next decade. Had it failed, the tax levy that voters approved in 2015 would have expired, winding down the democracy vouchers.

Supporters celebrated the measure’s success, which comes eight years after Seattle first implemented the program. Since then, studies have found that the vouchers have strengthened the influence of everyday residents on local politics and allowed a wider array of candidates to launch campaigns, decreasing their reliance on big-money donors.

“Seattle showed the country what’s possible when we commit to making local elections more inclusive and accountable,” said Cinthia Illan-Vazquez, executive director of the Washington Bus, an organization that promotes civic engagement among youth. “At a time when federal courts and extremist politicians are attacking voting rights and blocking campaign finance reforms, Seattle voters just sent a powerful message: We will protect our democracy and keep building toward a system that truly represents all of us.” . . .

Proponents of the program also highlight how it has increased the number and diversity of people donating to local elections, drawing in Seattleites who otherwise may be disengaged from city politics. According to a University of Washington study, over the first two cycles of the program, Seattle saw a 350 percent increase in the number of unique donors. 

Another, more recent study, conducted by researchers at Stony Brook University and Georgetown University, found that the donors using democracy vouchers were more likely to be young and lower-income. 

These changes are making local elections more competitive and creating a tougher road for incumbents to win reelection, according to the University of Washington study. Alex Gallo Brown, campaign manager of Katie Wilson, the progressive mayoral candidate who is currently leading Mayor Bruce Harell in Tuesday’s primary, thinks that democracy vouchers were critical to Wilson’s success. 

Ansley Skipper and Drew Penrose write about the obvious solution to gerrymandering: proportional representation.

Most modern democracies don’t have legislative districts represented by only one legislator — which is why most don’t struggle with gerrymandering like we do. Instead, a majority of democracies today use proportional multimember districts (we’ll get back to what this means in a bit), which makes gerrymandering “prohibitively difficult” in practice, in the words of that same study. Our decision to use single-member districts makes gerrymandering possible in the first place. . . .

But here’s one of the biggest problems: Even if we got rid of gerrymandering, biased outcomes — the thing we really care about when we talk about gerrymandering — will persist as long as we have single-member districts. . . .

But there is a solution. A system that would end boundary-drawing brawls and make our democracy more effective, inclusive, and representative. It’s called proportional representation. How it works is intuitive: Share of votes equals share of seats. . . .

Under proportional representation, we can have it all. The same map can be competitive and fair, representative and compact. Racial minorities can be represented even when they don’t live in the same area. District lines can much more easily follow existing political and real-world geography.

Plus, because it creates more competition and a more representative system, proportional representation opens the door for more politically viable parties, more coalition-building, and more cross-ideological allegiances. A more representative government with more incentives for compromise and moderation could also mean a more responsive, effective government. . . .

And proportional systems are much harder, if not impossible, to gerrymander — because voters’ representation is based on how they vote, not where they live. It’s easy to make the opposition a minority in any given district. It’s impossible to draw them out entirely.