Redistricting and Reapportionment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Election Is Over. Now Comes the Battle for Voting Rights in 2024

      by

      Voters rebuffed the most aggressive efforts to weaken democracy in the midterms. But battles over election districts and ballot restrictions that could prove crucial in 2024 have already resumed.WASHINGTON — With Raphael Warnock’s victory in the Georgia Senate race on Tuesday, the major midterm elections are over.But the battles over voting rules, restrictions and political boundaries that will help determine who wins the next ones barely paused for ballot-counting before resuming in force.Indeed, the day after Mr. Warnock’s election, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially seismic case brought by Republicans in North Carolina that could give state legislatures significantly expanded power over election laws — and virtually unlimited authority to draw gerrymandered maps.The landscape is familiar. Democrats who took control of state legislatures in Michigan and Minnesota are preparing legislation to to broaden voting access, including measures in Michigan that would mandate absentee ballot drop boxes.Republicans, who control a majority of legislatures across the country, are proposing new restrictive legislation they say would combat election fraud, though it remains exceedingly rare. And though both parties have benefited from gerrymanders, Republicans are far more likely to make it a centerpiece of their electoral strategy.In the Ohio Legislature, Republicans are poised to pass bills that would stiffen the ID requirement for casting a ballot, limit the use of drop boxes and end automatic mailings of absentee-ballot applications to voters.In North Carolina, a Republican sweep of state Supreme Court races last month makes it likely that the State Legislature will be able to gerrymander existing nonpartisan maps of congressional and legislative districts before the 2024 elections.In Wisconsin, both parties are girding for an April election that will determine partisan control of the state’s already politicized Supreme Court — and either open or shut the door on a legal challenge to an impregnable Republican gerrymander of the State Legislature.Some of that jockeying for power always goes on beneath the radar of most voters. But in the wake of more direct attacks on democracy by insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol and by election deniers in last month’s vote, the divergent legislative priorities of the two parties — and particularly Republican reliance on restrictive voting measures and supercharged gerrymanders — reflect what has become a ceaseless tug of war over the rules of American politics and governance.“It’s not the same thing as throwing out the vote count and putting in the wrong count,” said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “But it’s a form of unfair gaming of the system to gain electoral advantage, in a way that shuts out legitimate voters.”The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      This Case Should Never Have Made It to the Supreme Court

      by

      “The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history — that’s how the former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig described Moore v. Harper, an extraordinary lawsuit that the Supreme Court considered in oral arguments Wednesday morning. Judge Luttig, a conservative and a widely respected legal thinker, is not one for overstatement. Yet most Americans aren’t paying attention to the case because it involves some confusing terminology and an arcane legal theory. It is essential that people understand just how dangerous this case is to the fundamental structure of American government, and that enough justices see the legal fallacies and protect our democracy.First, the back story on the case: In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers redrew their congressional maps. The state had 13 districts at the time, and its voters were more or less evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans who are in control of North Carolina’s legislature didn’t want fair maps; they wanted power. In one of the most egregious gerrymanders in the nation, they drew 10 seats intended to favor themselves.The North Carolina courts were not amused. A panel of three trial judges found that the 2021 maps were “intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage” — so much so that Republicans could win legislative majorities even when Democrats won more votes statewide. The State Supreme Court struck down the maps, finding they violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantees of free elections, free speech, free assembly and equal protection.That should have been the end of it: A state court applying the state Constitution to strike down a state law. But North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers appealed, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not give state courts authority to rule on their congressional maps — even though the legislature had passed a law authorizing the courts to review redistricting plans like these. Instead, the lawmakers are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.In 2000 the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since.To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent. The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.On Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country. And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”In practice, the theory that the petitioners in the case are seeking to use would turn hundreds of state constitutional provisions into dead letters in federal elections. For instance, 48 states affirmatively guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions. (The federal Constitution still does not.) Most state constitutions guarantee free, fair, equal or open elections. Even the secret ballot — so fundamental to American democracy — is a creature of state constitutions. If the justices accept the most aggressive version of the independent state legislature theory that the petitioners want them to and even if they accept a weaker version, provisions like these could become invalid overnight, because the theory holds that state constitutions have no authority to impose any regulations on federal elections. (The Constitution and federal law remain supreme, so challenges to state legislative actions could still be brought in federal courts.)Some of the justices insist that they don’t — they can’t — pay attention to the real-world outcomes of their rulings. They’re just interpreting law. By that logic, this case should be rejected on its merits.First, the theory is based on bad legal interpretation. The Constitution uses the word “legislature” in describing who has the power to regulate federal elections. Because of this word, the theory’s supporters claim, state legislatures have nearly unlimited power in that realm. But as Judge Luttig has noted, the theory has “literally no support” in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers who wrote the Constitution were concerned that state legislatures had too much power, not too little. The text they wrote makes many references to the powers of those legislatures and of Congress, but it never says or implies that they are immune to review by the judicial branch.Second, the theory is based on bad history. The best evidence its supporters offer is a two-century-old document that has long been known to be fraudulent. Written in 1818 by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, a founding father, it is purported to be a replica of the plan for government that he introduced three decades earlier at the Constitutional Convention. But what he submitted in 1818 was not the real deal. James Madison suspected this immediately, as have virtually all historians to examine it in the years since.When the theory’s supporters sought to claim that the practices of early state legislatures proved that their side should win, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, “Yes. If you rewrite history, it’s very easy to do.”Third, if the Supreme Court accepts this theory, it will create a logistical nightmare in states across the country. That’s because the theory applies only to federal elections, not state elections, in which state courts unquestionably have a role to play. As a result, there would be two sets of rules operating at the same time, one for federal elections and one for state elections. Chaos and confusion would reign.Most important, the Supreme Court has already implicitly rejected the theory many times over. In precedents stretching back decades, the court has made clear that state courts have the power to set limits on what lawmakers can do when it comes to federal elections. As recently as 2019, the court rejected a plea for it to stop the extreme partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and other states. In doing so, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that this is exactly the role that state courts should play. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” he wrote.At Wednesday’s argument, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to reject that premise. He accused elected state court judges, like those in North Carolina, of being political actors themselves. “There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of this decision on democracy,” said Justice Alito, who has given openly partisan speeches to outside groups and voted consistently in alignment with Republican policy priorities. “Do you think that it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about districting from the legislature to elected supreme courts where the candidates are permitted by state law to campaign on the issue of districting?”Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. On one side, a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing legal group the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights organizations.On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters — among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman, a former law professor last seen helping Donald Trump plan an illegal and unconstitutional coup to stay in office (an act that has exposed Mr. Eastman to a real risk of criminal prosecution).That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough. Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Supreme Court About to Upend American Election Laws?

      by

      Here’s what to know about a court case that could change the way Americans vote — and who decides how they do.For months, my inbox has been bombarded by anxious Democrats and election experts wanting to talk about a once-obscure legal theory that could fundamentally alter the way Americans vote.Known as the independent state legislature doctrine, it holds, in its purest form, that state constitutions have little to no ability to constrain state legislatures. The doctrine emerged from a novel interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the authority to set the “time, places and manner” of federal elections.At the core of the dispute is whether the framers intended the word “legislature” in the document to be understood strictly, or whether they meant that other institutions — like state courts, governors and secretaries of state — also had important roles to play in setting and interpreting the rules around elections and voting.A fringe version of the doctrine entered the public discussion last year when it emerged that one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, had written a memo arguing that it even allowed state lawmakers to send their own slate of presidential electors to Washington.The Supreme Court has traditionally been gun-shy about encroaching on state courts, especially when they are interpreting their own constitutions.But a more mainstream conservative position, embraced by the Republican Party and rejected by Democrats, started gaining support on the right amid legal battles over the accommodations some states made for voters during the pandemic, like the expansion of mail voting.If adopted, the doctrine would, among other things, bar state courts from ensuring that state laws comply with a requirement, common in many state constitutions, that elections be “free and fair” — with potentially vast implications for rules on redistricting, citizen-led commissions and voting. Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      North Carolina’s Governor Says a Fringe Claim Before the Supreme Court Would Upend Democracy

      by

      Over the past six months, the United States Supreme Court has handed down one misguided ruling after another, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to an abortion, curtailing the regulation of guns and industrial emissions, and muddying the divide between church and state. The people have protested. They’ve organized. And in 2022, they voted.In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the June decision on abortion, the majority wrote that “women are not without electoral or political power.” That’s one thing they got right, and Republicans found that out the hard way in the November midterm elections that they expected to win big. Now, however, the very ability to exercise electoral and political power at the ballot box is hanging in the balance in a case the court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday.Moore v. Harper is a case from North Carolina that state and national Republicans are using to push an extreme legal premise known as the “independent state legislature theory.” While the United States Constitution delegates the authority to administer federal elections to the states, with Congress able to supersede those state decisions, proponents of this theory argue that state legislatures are vested with the exclusive power to run those elections. This view would leave no room for oversight by state courts and put the ability of governors to veto election-related legislation in doubt.The court’s decision on this alarming argument could fundamentally reshape American democracy. Four justices have suggested that they are sympathetic to the theory. If the court endorses this doctrine, it would give state legislatures sole power over voting laws, congressional redistricting, and potentially even the selection of presidential electors and the proper certification of election winners.Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a decision earlier this year, said the theory that state courts are barred from reviewing a congressional redistricting plan was “repugnant to the sovereignty of states, the authority of state constitutions and the independence of state courts, and would produce absurd and dangerous consequences.”You can look to North Carolina to see the potential for dire consequences. In 2010, Republicans took over the state legislature in a midterm election. Since then, North Carolina has been ground zero for Republican attempts to manipulate elections. As the state’s attorney general and now governor since 2017, I’ve dealt with Republican legislative leaders as they advanced one scheme after another to manipulate elections while making it harder for populations they have targeted to vote.These schemes robbed voters from the start to the end of an election: a voter ID requirement so strict that a college ID from the University of North Carolina isn’t good enough. No same-day registration during early voting. No provisional ballots for voters who show up at the wrong precinct. Shorter early voting periods eliminated voting the Sunday before Election Day, a day when African American churches hold popular “souls to the polls” events.Fortunately, these measures were stopped in 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which described them as targeting African Americans “with almost surgical precision.”Republicans in the legislature have also gerrymandered districts in diabolical ways. In 2016, state Republicans drew a congressional redistricting map that favored Republicans 10-3. They did so, the Republican chairman of a legislative redistricting committee explained, “because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”North Carolinians have relied on courts and my veto power as governor to foil many of these schemes. In 2022 a successful lawsuit in state court challenging a 2021 gerrymandered congressional map resulted in fair districts, splitting the state’s 14 districts (the state gained a district after the 2020 census) so that Democrats and Republicans each won seven seats in November’s elections. It seemed only right, given the nearly even divide between Democratic and Republican votes statewide. Republican efforts to avoid this result led to the Moore v. Harper appeal now before the Supreme Court.As recently as 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion on partisan gerrymandering claims in Maryland and North Carolina that state courts were an appropriate venue to hear such cases but that those claims were political issues beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Retreating from that position on the role of state courts would be a shocking leap backward that would undermine the checks and balances established in state constitutions across the country.Republican leaders in the North Carolina state legislature have shown us how the elections process can be manipulated for partisan gain. And that’s what you can expect to see from state legislatures across the country if the court reverses course in this case.Our democracy is a fragile ecosystem that requires checks and balances to survive. Giving state legislatures unfettered control over federal elections is not only a bad idea but also a blatant misreading of the Constitution. Don’t let the past decade of North Carolina voting law battles become a glimpse into the nation’s future.Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has been the governor of North Carolina since 2017. He was previously elected to four terms as attorney general.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      As Stakes Rise, State Supreme Courts Become Crucial Election Battlegrounds

      by

      Pivotal issues like abortion, gerrymandering and voting have been tossed into state justices’ laps. Politicians, ideological PACs and big money are following.WASHINGTON — State supreme court races, traditionally Election Day afterthoughts, have emerged this year as crucial battlefields in the struggle over the course of American democracy, attracting a torrent of last-minute money and partisan advertising.In Ohio, an arm of the national Democratic Party funneled a half-million dollars last month into a super PAC backing three Democratic candidates for the high court. In North Carolina, a state political action committee with ties to national Republicans gave $850,000 last week to a group running attack ads against Democratic state supreme court candidates.On another level entirely, Fair Courts America, a political action committee largely bankrolled by the Schlitz brewing heir and shipping supplies billionaire Richard E. Uihlein and his wife, Elizabeth, has pledged to spend $22 million supporting deeply conservative judicial candidates in seven states.The motivation behind the money is no mystery: In states like Ohio, North Carolina and Michigan, partisan control of supreme courts is up for grabs, offering a chance for progressives to seize the majority in Ohio and for conservatives to take power in North Carolina and Michigan. In Illinois, competing billionaires are fueling court races that offer Republicans their first chance at a Supreme Court majority in 53 years.The implications of victory are profound. As the U.S. Supreme Court continues to offload crucial legal questions to the states, state courts have abruptly become final arbiters of some of America’s most divisive issues — gun rights, gerrymandering, voting rights, abortion. In heavily gerrymandered states, justices have the potential to be the only brake on one-party rule.And as Republican politicians continue to embrace election denialism, high courts could end up playing decisive roles in settling election disputes in 2024.Undertones of politics are hardly new in state court campaigns. But the rise of big money and hyperpartisan rhetoric worries some experts.Once, it was businesses that sought to elect judges whose rulings would fatten their bottom lines, said Michael J. Klarman, a constitutional scholar at Harvard University.“The contest now is over democracy,” he said, “over gerrymandering, over easing restrictions on the ballot, over efforts to re-enfranchise felons.” “It’s not a stretch to say the results affect the status of our democracy as much as what the Supreme Court does,” he said.An abortion rights demonstrator in Detroit in June after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a constitutional right to abortion.Emily Elconin/Getty ImagesMany judicial candidates shy away from being perceived as politicians. Even candidates in hotly fought races tend to follow legal ethics guidelines limiting statements on issues they might have to decide.But others can be increasingly nonchalant about such perceptions.State Representative Joe Fischer is openly running for the nonpartisan Kentucky Supreme Court as an anti-abortion Republican, with $375,000 in backing from a national G.O.P. committee whose ads cast him as a firewall against the “socialist agenda” of President Biden. Fair Courts America is pouring $1.6 million into backing him and two others seeking judicial seats.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.A Pivotal Test in Pennsylvania: A battle for blue-collar white voters is raging in President Biden’s birthplace, where Democrats have the furthest to fall and the most to gain.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Biden’s Agenda at Risk: If Republicans capture one or both chambers of Congress, the president’s opportunities on several issues will shrink. Here are some major areas where the two sides would clash.Ohio Senate Race: Polls show Representative Tim Ryan competing within the margin of error against his G.O.P. opponent, J.D. Vance. Mr. Ryan said the race would be “the upset of the night,” but there is still a cold reality tilting against Democrats.The three Republicans on the Ohio Supreme Court ballot — all sitting justices — raised eyebrows by appearing at a rally in Youngstown on Sept. 17 for former President Donald J. Trump, who repeated the lie that the 2020 election “was rigged and stolen and now our country is being destroyed.”Mr. Trump singled out the three for praise, saying, “Get out and vote for them, right? Vote. Great job you’re doing.” Later, two of the three declined to confirm to The Columbus Dispatch that the 2020 election results were legitimate, saying judicial ethics forbade them from commenting on issues under litigation. (The state ethics code indeed bars comments on pending legal issues in any state, though its scope is unclear. A spokesman for the candidates said a challenge to the election had recently been filed in Michigan.)Three weeks later, Cleveland television station WEWS reported that the three had stated on candidate surveys compiled by Cincinnati Right to Life that there is no constitutional right to abortion — an issue under review, or sure to be reviewed, in state courts nationwide.“People are starting to feel like judges are nothing more than politicians in robes,” said William K. Weisenberg, a former assistant executive director of the Ohio State Bar Association. “What we see evolving now — and it’s very, very dangerous for our society — is a loss of public trust and confidence in our justice system and our courts.”The battles reflect the rising stakes in rulings over voting and electoral maps that conceivably could determine control of Congress in close elections.The Ohio Supreme Court voted 4-3 this year — several times — to invalidate Republican gerrymanders of state legislative and congressional districts. Those maps remain in effect, under federal court order, but the court chosen this month will decide whether new maps that must be drawn for the 2024 election are valid.In North Carolina, another 4-3 vote struck down Republican-drawn gerrymanders in January, changing a map that guaranteed Republicans as many as 11 of 14 congressional seats into one that split the seats roughly equally.Michigan’s court ordered an abortion-rights referendum onto the November ballot after a canvassing board deadlocked along party lines on Aug. 31 over whether to do so. The next Supreme Court in Illinois is likely to decide disputes over abortion and gun rights.The courts’ role has also been amplified as political norms have lost sway and some legislatures have moved to expand their power.In Wisconsin, the Republican-gerrymandered State Senate has given itself broad authority over the composition of state boards and commissions simply by refusing to confirm new board members nominated by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. The state court upheld the tactic by a 4-3 vote along ideological lines in June, allowing Republican board members to keep their seats even though Governor Evers has statutory power to nominate replacements.Not all states elect members of their highest courts. Governors fill most of the 344 posts, usually with help from nominating commissions, though that hardly takes politics out of the selection.In the 22 states that elect judges — some others require periodic voter approval of judges in retention elections — most races are fairly free of mudslinging and big-ticket intervention by outside groups.But rising politicization nevertheless has had a measurable and growing impact.Since in the late 1980s, voters’ choices in state supreme court races have aligned ever more consistently with their political preferences in county elections, the University of Minnesota political scientist and legal scholar Herbert M. Kritzer found in a 2021 study.“At this stage,” he said, “identification with the parties has become so strong in terms of what it means for people that I don’t know if you’ve got to say another thing other than ‘I’m a Republican’ or ‘I’m a Democrat.’”An analysis of social science studies by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University also suggested that campaign pressures influence how judges rule. The analysis found that judges facing re-election or retention campaigns tended to issue harsher rulings in criminal cases.One telling statistic: Over a 15-year span, appointed judges reversed roughly one in four death sentences, while judges facing competitive elections — which frequently are clotted with ads accusing them of being soft on crime — reversed roughly one in 10.If past elections are any guide, the final days of midterm campaigning will see a deluge of spending on advertising aimed at drawing voters’ attention to contests they frequently overlook.Many ads will be negative. Indeed, ads financed by outside groups — virtually all focused on abortion rights or crime — markedly resemble ones for congressional or statewide offices.Ohio is typical. In one commercial run by a PAC representing the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, a young girl with a backpack strolls down a neighborhood street. An announcer warns: “There’s danger among us. Jennifer Brunner made it easier for accused murderers, rapists, child molesters to return to our streets.”Ohio Supreme Court justice Pat Fischer speaks during the Fairfield County Lincoln Republican Club banquet in March.Paul Vernon/Associated PressAnother ad, by the progressive PAC Forward Justice, reprises the recent story of a 10-year-old Ohio girl who had to leave the state to obtain an abortion after being raped. An announcer adds: “Pat DeWine said women have no constitutional right to abortion. Pat Fischer even compared abortion to slavery and segregation.”Ms. Brunner, a Democrat and an associate justice of the Supreme Court, is running to be chief justice. Mr. Fischer and Mr. DeWine, both Republican associate justices, are seeking re-election.Candidates and interest groups spent at least $97 million on state supreme court races in the 2020 election cycle, according to the Brennan Center. Spending records are all but certain to be set this year in some states, said Douglas Keith, the Brennan Center’s counsel for democracy programs.Conservatives have long outspent liberals on state court races. Besides Fair Courts America’s $22 million commitment, the Republican State Leadership Committee, an arm of the national party long involved in state court races, plans to spend a record $5 million or more on the contests.Supreme Court races in Illinois are legendary for being matches of billionaire contributors — on the left, Gov. J.B. Pritzker, whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and on the right, Kenneth C. Griffin, a hedge-fund manager.But outsiders are rivaling their contributions. An Illinois group backed by trial lawyers and labor unions, All for Justice, said it will spend at least $8 million to back Democratic candidates.Outside spending has been exceedingly rare in states like Kentucky and Montana, but even there, things are becoming more politicized. In Montana, where a 1999 State Supreme Court ruling recognized abortion as a constitutional right, conservative groups are seeking to unseat a justice appointed by a Democratic governor in 2017. The state’s trial attorneys and Planned Parenthood have rallied to her defense.In northern Kentucky, the Republican anti-abortion candidate, Joseph Fischer, is opposing Justice Michelle M. Keller, a registered independent.Mr. Fischer did not respond to a telephone call seeking an interview. Ms. Keller said the partisan attacks from independent groups swirling around her race were “new ground.”“This will have a chilling effect on the quality of judges if we’re not careful,” she said. “Good lawyers, the kind of people you want to aspire to the bench, won’t do it. You can make much more money in private practice.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fears Over Fate of Democracy Leave Many Voters Frustrated and Resigned

      by

      As democracy frays around them, Republicans and Democrats see different culprits and different risks.LA CROSSE, Wis. — Allyse Barba, a 34-year-old in the insurance industry, watched excitedly upstairs at Thrunie’s Classic Cocktails as Mandela Barnes, the youthful Democrat running for the Senate, tore through his stump speech just 19 days before the election.Then Ms. Barba reflected on the politics of her state: the divide between the blue dot of downtown La Crosse and the surrounding red reaches of western Wisconsin, where she said she could not have a civil conversation; the Republican favored to win the seat in her congressional district, who was at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021; and a Legislature so gerrymandered that her Democratic Party does not stand a chance.“It is disheartening to live in a state where nothing happens,” she said glumly. “Voting isn’t making a difference right now.”Seventy-one percent of all voters believe that democracy is at risk, according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, but only 7 percent identified that as the most important problem facing the country. Americans face more immediate concerns: the worst inflation in 40 years, the loss of federal abortion rights after 50 years and a perception that crime is surging, if not in their communities then in cities nearby.But another factor is dampening people’s motivation to save America’s representative system of government: Some have already lost faith in its ability to represent them.Wisconsin would seem like a state where concerns over democracy feel pressing — especially in this western swath of the state. The House of Representatives committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack uncovered text messages indicating that Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican seeking re-election, wanted to hand-deliver a slate of fake Wisconsin electors to Vice President Mike Pence that day to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s narrow victory in the state.Derrick Van Orden, the fiercely pro-Trump Republican running to succeed Representative Ron Kind, a moderate Democrat who has represented much of western and central Wisconsin since 1997, was at the Capitol on Jan. 6.And Wisconsin, perhaps more than any other state, is suffering through the erosion of democratic ideals already. Though virtually every elected statewide officer here is a Democrat, extreme gerrymandering of state legislative maps has given Republicans near supermajorities in the State Senate and House. At best, Democrats enter the state elections in November hoping to perpetuate the stalemate by re-electing their governor, Tony Evers, said Michael Hallquist, a Democratic alderman in Brookfield, outside Milwaukee.But that democratic erosion may have sent many of Wisconsin’s citizens on a downward spiral of feeling powerless, apathetic and disconnected as one-party control becomes entrenched.Tammy Wood, right, at Thrunie’s in La Crosse.Liam James Doyle for The New York Times“It is daunting to convince fellow Democrats their votes matter,” said Tammy Wood, a party organizer who tried to fire up the crowd at Thrunie’s with a rousing “Welcome, Democrats, defenders of democracy!”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.Losing Ground: With inflation concerns front and center, the state of democracy in the United States is not shaping up to be the driver of votes that many on the left hoped it would be.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.“That is the purpose of the gerrymander — to make us fall into that feeling of defeat,” she added. “But we can’t let that happen.”Of course, just what is threatening democracy depends on who you talk to. Many Republicans are just as frustrated, convinced that the threat stems from liberal teachers, professors or media personalities who they fear are indoctrinating their children; undocumented immigrants given a path to citizenship; or Democrats widening access to voting so much that they are inviting fraud.Michelle Ekstrom, 48, a moderate in Waukesha, typified Republicans who fear the electoral system has already been compromised.“I feel that it’s definitely crooked,” she said. “I always think to myself, What is the purpose if I go vote? Someone crooked somewhere along the way is just going to put more votes in somewhere else than the real people’s votes. I think it’s definitely tilted heavily on the Democratic side.”Mindy Pedersen, who runs a protective packaging business in Eleva, south of Eau Claire, believes democracy is being threatened by a dwindling self-reliance among Americans, saying they seem instead to be gravitating to their own kind — women, Black people, L.G.B.T.Q. people — to press their grievances. She described a meeting of a network of female business owners where she was asked to describe how the group had helped her company thrive. She replied that her gender had nothing to do with her success; she has been ostracized ever since, she said.“Do we want equality or do we want to crush our opposition, which is men?” Ms. Pedersen asked. “If I put out a sign that said, ‘White heterosexual women matter, and by the way, I love Jesus,’ oh, could you imagine the reaction?”Indeed, ask voters exactly what is threatening democracy and the answers are as varied as the individuals who formulate them.Peter Flucke, a retired police officer, sees a breakdown of the rule of law as representing the unraveling of democratic control.Liam James Doyle for The New York TimesPeter Flucke, 61, a retired police officer from Ashwaubenon, outside Green Bay, sees a failure of governments to protect their citizens and a breakdown of the rule of law as representing the unraveling of democratic control. Where does Mr. Flucke, now a bicycle and pedestrian safety consultant, see that happening? Not in the grainy images of lawlessness seen in countless attack ads against Democrats, but in rising death tolls in Wisconsin’s crosswalks and bike lanes.Mr. Flucke, an independent, said he would probably vote for Mr. Barnes and Mr. Evers, though not because of all this democracy talk. In the end, he said, he is most worried about his two daughters losing their right to choose an abortion.Caleb Hummel, 25, an engineer in Waukesha, also sees a threat to democracy, though it is by no means top of mind: socialism. His opposition to abortion is driving his vote for Republicans, but “there’s something to” this democracy-in-peril talk, he said. “The far left is demonstrating somewhat socialist policies.”Some voters are following with alarm the threats to democracy that spun out of Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Katheryn Dose, 74, a retired nurse in La Crosse, cited at length reports of Senator Johnson’s offer to deliver the slate of fake electors for Mr. Trump. She said it was “frightening” that her congressman next year could be Mr. Van Orden. And she looked beyond her own state to candidates like Kari Lake, a Republican running for governor in Arizona, who claim falsely that the 2020 election was stolen.“For me, I really worry about people like that being elected and running this country,” Ms. Dose said. “Election deniers with the power to deny the next election? That is a huge concern.”But voters like Ms. Dose appear vastly outnumbered by those who express concern for the fate of democracy, yet say they are willing to vote for candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election.David and Mindy Pedersen at home in Eleva, Wis. Ms. Pedersen believes democracy is being threatened by a dwindling self-reliance among Americans. Mr. Pedersen scoffed at the notion Jan. 6 presented a real threat to American democracy.Liam James Doyle for The New York TimesMs. Pedersen’s husband, David, a conservative who runs the packaging company with her, scoffed at all the fuss over Jan. 6.“In reality, do you think those people were really going to overthrow the government? Really?” he asked, taking offense at even being asked whether Jan. 6 was a threat to democracy. “Was Trump ever really going to not leave office? You know he would.”Mr. Barnes, Wisconsin’s lieutenant governor, clearly senses that the issue is not his ticket to the Senate. As he spoke to supporters, he did make the case that Mr. Johnson was a threat — “He personally attacked our democracy” — but only after criticizing Mr. Johnson’s support for a tax break for the wealthy, his efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, his opposition to Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices, his embrace of Wisconsin’s newly relevant 1849 abortion ban and much more.If Mr. Barnes had to choose the top two issues driving voters to the polls, he said later, he would pick inflation and abortion.Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said some of the apathy toward democracy’s fate stemmed from the structure of the American political system. Other countries have multiparty democracies where citizens have political options more narrowly tied to their interests — like “green” parties for environmentalists, religious parties or socialists. Ruling coalitions of multiple parties offer more citizens a stake in the government and something to root for.“Our two-party system is all or nothing,” Mr. Burden said. “Either your party wins the White House or loses it, wins Congress or loses it. It makes feelings more intense, positively or negatively.”People gathering outside Democratic Party offices in Eau Claire, Wis., after a canvassing event.Liam James Doyle for The New York TimesAnd in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia, where gerrymandering has ensured that the electorate’s partisan composition need bear little resemblance to that of its Legislature or congressional delegation, those feelings are entrenched. Only 2 percent of bills sponsored by Democrats in the Wisconsin State Legislature last session got a hearing, much less a vote.“In many ways, it does feel like there is not a lot of hope,” Mr. Hallquist, the alderman, said.Brad Pfaff, the candidate trying to keep western Wisconsin in the Democratic column, knows he has “more work to do” to convince voters that his opponent, Mr. Van Orden, a telegenic, retired Navy SEAL, disqualified himself from serving in Congress on Jan. 6.Mr. Van Orden’s campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but Mr. Van Orden wrote in an op-ed in The La Crosse Tribune that he had traveled to Washington “to stand for the integrity of our electoral system.”“When it became clear that a protest had become a mob, I left the area, as to remain there could be construed as tacitly approving this unlawful conduct,” Mr. Van Orden said.His base is not asking for an apology. “Why wasn’t the same shadow cast on the people burning down buildings and attacking the police the summer before?” Ms. Pedersen asked. “Why were those thugs not painted the same way as the Trump thugs?”Democrats are not giving Mr. Van Orden a pass.“The idea that Wisconsin would allow someone who was part of the Jan. 6 insurrection to go to Congress, the idea that we could even contemplate that, is deeply troubling,” Tammy Baldwin, the state’s Democratic senator, told party volunteers in Eau Claire before sending them off to canvass.But Mr. Pfaff sees it as a distinct possibility, if not a probability.Nationally, the Times/Siena poll found, 71 percent of Republicans said they would be comfortable voting for a candidate who thought the 2020 election had been stolen, as did 37 percent of independent voters and a notable 12 percent of Democrats.Mr. Pfaff, whose family has farmed in La Crosse County for seven generations and who served in the state and federal departments of agriculture, said he did not so much argue that Mr. Van Orden’s presence at the Capitol disqualified him. Instead, Mr. Pfaff said, it was “a window into his soul,” revealing “who he is as an individual” — too partisan for a district that, in the last 42 years, has been represented by a moderate and openly gay Republican, Steve Gunderson, and then by a centrist Democrat, Mr. Kind.But the district has changed. The consolidation of family farms into corporate operations has dislocated families from land they had worked for generations, turning them into employees of big agribusiness. Local manufacturing has been buffeted by globalization.“That has had a real impact on the people of this district,” Mr. Pfaff said. “They do feel that we’ve been left behind.”In the long rural stretches, hills and coulees between the hipster hangouts and union halls of La Crosse and Eau Claire, Van Orden and Johnson campaign signs jostle with faded Trump-Pence placards. Mr. Pfaff, who noted that Democratic super PACs were not coming to his aid, said it would be pointless in any case for outsiders to ask local voters to reject Mr. Van Orden as a threat to the political order.“We’re patriotic Americans, we know the difference between right and wrong, and what happened in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 was wrong,” he said. “But the thing is, if somebody from the outside, you know, somebody from the East Coast or West Coast, starts talking about something like that, that’s not how people want it. They’re not going to hear that.”Dan Simmons More