The Supreme Court is reviewing what?!?!?!?

This week the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal in the case sytled, Shelby County v. Holder which seeks to challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and its requirement of pre-clearance of changes in voting rules in jurisdictions that have exhibited a history of racial discrimination in its voter laws.  The logic of their reasoning was simply that Barack Obama was elected and re-elected President of the United States and therefore the notion of racial discrimination at the polls is invalid. However the facts have been far from supporting this logic and would tend to reinforce the necessity of the Voting Rights Act and its requirement of pre-clearance in certain areas.

Over the last 2 years, many jurisdictions, including many that are not the subject or the requirements of Section 5 have attempted to change election law in such a way as to provide a significant impediment to voting or representation.  Texas, a jurisdiction subject to pre-clearance, found itself challenged for both its redrawn electoral maps and its newly crafted Voter ID laws.  Texas found itself the recipient of four new congressional districts due to its population growth, especially in its Latino population, yet through a partisan effort sought to draw the districts in such a way that Latino influence in the body politic would be heavily diluted. In fact only one of the newly created districts could even be considered a minority opportunity district, and it was drawn specifically to try and place long serving Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett in a district where he would not survive a primary challenge thus completing a decade long crusade of the Texas GOP to oust Congressman Doggett.  Then Texas came under fire, and rightly so, for seeking to implement a voter ID scheme, obstinately to combat voter fraud, which sought to limit the involvement of voting blocs that tended to vote against the GOP such as students, the elderly, Latinos and African-Americans by placing obstacles to casting ballots that many could not meet.  To underscore this, the law specifically excluded student ID issued by colleges and universities while allowing state concealed handgun permits to suffice at the polls.

Texas was not the only state to have its voter ID laws challenged, its pre-clearance brethren South Carolina had its proposed law blocked by the Justice Department after it applied for pre-clearance.  Pennsylvania's own version of Voter ID law was challenged in courts since that state was not subject to Section 5's pre-clearance requirement.  What made they Keystone State's case more interesting however was the controversy that surrounded its law from the start.  Mike Turazi, Republican Majority Leader in the Pennsylvania house of representatives, told an audience that the Voter ID law will help deliver the state and its electoral college votes to Mitt Romney. Then later, during the ensuing court challenge over the law (which the state contended that it enacted to curb in-person voter fraud), the state stipulated that it had no evidence of any acts of in-person voter fraud it could document.  Once again the demographers demonstrated that those that are most likely to not have the required identification  were more likely to be poorer, urban and other groups that traditionally voted against the GOP and its candidates.

Until we come to the day where legislative districts are drawn by disinterested parties rather than elected officials the notion of pre-clearance should not just survive but be expanded.  The court should rule that all jurisdiction who seek to fundamentally change voting rules submit their requests to the Justice Department for approval. This is the crux of the Shelby County argument.  I am sure the Justice Department would swiftly grant approval to jurisdictions who seek to ease voting restrictions, draw legislative maps that reflected the areas diversity, and expand early voting hours, while rejecting those that seek to continue a pattern of exclusion and obstructionism designed to allow a shrinking majority to retain some vestige of power they feel entitled to.  This would be the best possible outcome by addressing the concerns brought up in the case before the court and also reaffirming the importance of the spirit behind the Voting Rights Act.

Welcome to the Oligarchy

Over the last several years, the conservative movement sought to rein in what they saw as government intrusion into areas where the believed it ought not to be involved. Over the few weeks it has become clear that the movement wishes to dismantle our form of representative democracy and replace it with a neo-feudal society headed by an oligarchy.

While the Republicans in congress hold the full faith and credit of the United States Hostage as they try to extort the elimination of the social safety net as their price for doing what everyone says has to be done, the Supreme Court has been laying the groundwork for corporation to supplant the our elected representatives as policymakers for the nation. Last week, they denied class status in a sex-discrimination case brought against corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart on flimsy grounds. Research conducted by Barbara Ehrenreich and Nelson Lichtenstein clearly show evidence of a corporate climate that institutionalized gender bias in the realm of promotion, a claim 5 Justices said they found so egregious that a Jury should not even have to power to consider the merits at trial.

Then today the gang of 5 sought to chill political speech, when they ruled that Arizona's public campaign financing law, which sought to provide relative parity between candidates and their ability to spend money on speech as going to far. They clearly showed that, in this decision, they want only those with unlimited financial resources to have a say in our elections.

What can we do about this?

First, we need to pressure Congress to extend the ethical codes that govern our federal judiciary to the Supreme Court. These codes define conflict of interest, and specify when a justice must recuse themselves from a case. It also defines what conduct would be unbecoming of a justice. It would prohibit them from engaging in partisan and political activity or accept gifts that might be viewed as means to curry favor. Our founders wished to see a judiciary that could act as arbiters of justice and not become law unto themselves. Remember every member of the House and one third of the Senate will be up for reelection, if the cries for this become deafening, the incumbents might fear ouster if they try to block such a measure.

Second, contact your Senators and voice concern over the ethical behavior of members of the Supreme Court and that members of the Judiciary committee should investigate the issues that have arisen. Clarence Thomas has had many issues, from the financial disclosure documents that failed to report his wife's income as a political operative, to the gifts he has received from the likes of Christopher DeMuth and Harlan Crow who had interest in many cases before the court. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito all engaging in partisan political activites, such as the speeches given by Thomas and Scalia at one of the Koch Brother's Secret Retreats. Investigate the activities in the full light of day and then if the evidence suggests that they may be true draft articles of impeachment against any Justice whose conduct falls short of the ethical behavior we expect of our Supreme Court.

Remember, political change can only come from the governed. We need to see the political activism like the world saw in 1968. We need to harness the spirit of Egypt, Tunisia, Wisconsin and tell the likes of John Boehner, and Mich McConnell and their patrons that we will not allow our nation to devolve into an oligarchy as we sweep them from power.