SCOTUS on Voting Rights: All Or Nothing

Many people are upset that the Supreme Court has overturned section four of the Voting Rights Act because they believe, with good cause (see dissenting opinion), that the nine states and the additional districts it targets will use their restored sovereignty to enact voting laws that will effectively discourage registration and turn-out for minority citizens.  The court is being attacked for opening the door for these States to enact laws that may be in violation of the 15th amendment without having to be screened for racial discrimination by the Department of Justice before they come into effect.  Now, the laws will have to challenged in court before being scrutinized (like in the other 41 states), as opposed to being scrutinized by default without anyone even challenging them.

The majority opinion does not claim that discrimination by race no longer exists (although it does cite how much progress there has been toward equality), or even that it doesn't expect any "back-sliding" toward Jim Crow.  Rather, it explains that the formula to determine which states are singled out for special DOJ scrutiny no longer captures all or exclusively the biggest offenders.  Some states which have relatively "clean" records in recent times are still facing extra scrutiny, whereas five states not singled out have even worse records of violations than eight of the nine states that are.

This implies either that the formula should be adjusted to include additional states who are worse offenders than those currently included, or it must be struck down for its arbitrary application to only a subset of the group of states that are attempting to circumvent the 15th amendment.  As the Supreme Court does not have the power to modify a law to expand coverage, its only option was to strike it down and expect that Congress will revise the law more accurately to reflect current conditions.  Given that the law was renewed in 2006 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House and signed by a Republican president, and given the public's near-universal support for equal voting rights, it should be easy for Congress to get this done (and it might even help out their horrendous approval ratings).

This court decision has provided a powerful impetus for Congress to pass new legislation to protect voting rights for all Americans, not just those in states who were the biggest offenders in 1965.  Furthermore, this is an excellent opportunity to add in provisions specifically tailored to address "second generation" barriers to voting that have effectively blocked minority representation despite near parity of access to the ballot achieved by the VRA.

From one perspective, this was a blow to the cause of equal representation.  From another perspective, by shattering the status quo, this could serve to draw national attention to ongoing racist abuses by states who managed to avoid being included in section four as written, as well as modern indirect methods of disenfranchisement.  Hopefully, that national attention will lead to a solution that is more extensive, inclusive, equally enforced, and currently relevant than the original VRA.

Does Money Buy Elections?

The question of whether and to what degree money can buy elections became a subject of great debate after the ruling in Citizens United basically lifted political campaign contribution limits and allowed them to be anonymous.  Naturally, many people were concerned that whichever candidate received the most money would have a huge advantage and win against the "true" will of the people.

The arguments in defense of unlimited spending say that free speech is protected, and point to instances where Republican candidates that had tremendous financial advantages lost to Democrats with half the money, or Democrats who had a similar monetary advantage and lost.  This does indeed show that there are definite limits to what money can buy in an election.

However, the framing of this argument is remarkably deceptive.  If we broaden the analysis to consider all of the parties that ran in elections, we could see that the two parties that each have exponentially more money than the other (third) parties win over 99% of all federal offices. 

When we look outside of the two-party frame, we see that money almost certainly buys elections.  Advertising won't change too many peoples' minds, but it will group everyone on the "left" around the Democratic candidate, and everyone on the "right" around the Republican candidate. 

If unlimited amounts of money can be donated anonymously, then a single wealthy entity can secretly donate huge sums to any two "opposing" sides of an election and basically guarantee that one of its candidates will win the office, thereby effectively purchasing 99% of all elections.  For extra guarantees, an entity could plant and fund multiple candidates in every relevant primary election, as well, to control the choices available at the end.


If this false dichotomy is established and maintained, the two parties can be "swung" this way or that on any issue, allowing the entity that controls both parties financially to manipulate the government over time to produce whatever laws and programs suit it.  Two-party rule, when both parties derive their power from the same monied interests, is really just single-party rule.

I'm voting for a third-party candidate.