Supreme Court (US)
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
Elecciones de medio término en EE. UU.: lo que hay que saber
¿Qué está en juego y cómo funciona el proceso? Empecemos por lo básico.Si en general sabes que las elecciones de medio mandato que se aproximan en Estados Unidos tendrán importantes repercusiones a nivel global, pero no estás al tanto de cómo funciona el sistema gubernamental estadounidense o te cuesta trabajo entenderlo, has llegado al lugar indicado.En el sistema bipartidista de Estados Unidos, el control de dos entidades claves de gobierno —el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes— es esencial para aprobar leyes, y se decidirá por votación el 8 de noviembre. Por el momento, los demócratas tienen el control de ambas cámaras y la presidencia, por lo que perder la Cámara de Representantes o el Senado frente a los republicanos reduciría significativamente el poder de los demócratas en los próximos dos años de mandato del presidente Joe Biden.Se celebrarán cientos de elecciones, pero se considera que muchos candidatos ya tienen la victoria asegurada, por lo que el control de las entidades en cuestión probablemente se decida en unas pocas votaciones reñidas.Dame lo básico: ¿Qué se decide con estas elecciones?El Senado, que ahora está en un empate de 50-50 pero está bajo el control de los demócratas porque la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris emite el voto de desempate, tiene 100 integrantes, dos por cada uno de los 50 estados. Hay 34 escaños en juego este noviembre, y los ganadores cumplen periodos de seis años.La Cámara de Representantes, con 435 miembros con derecho a voto, está controlada por los demócratas, con 222 votos frente a 213 en contra. Los 435 escaños están en juego, y los ganadores cumplen mandatos de dos años.Las probabilidades están en contra de los demócratas, pero este año es inusualPor lo general, el partido que ocupa la presidencia —actualmente los demócratas— ha tenido malos resultados en las elecciones de medio mandato. La frustración con el presidente suele propiciar el éxito del otro partido, y Biden tiene índices de aprobación bajos.En la actualidad, los republicanos son favoritos para ganar la Cámara de Representantes mientras que el Senado podría ganarlo cualquiera, según FiveThirtyEight. Los demócratas gozaron de un importante impulso en las encuestas después de que la Corte Suprema fallara una sentencia impopular en junio que eliminó el derecho constitucional al aborto, lo que dio al partido la esperanza de poder desafiar las tendencias históricas, pero en general esa ventaja se ha desvanecido.Aquí encontrarás más información sobre cómo seguir las encuestas y las predicciones, y sobre la amplia gama de resultados posibles.Por qué importa: si los demócratas pierden cualquiera de las cámaras, la agenda de Biden está en problemasEn tiempos tan polarizados, es sumamente difícil aprobar leyes a menos que un partido controle la presidencia, la Cámara de los Representantes y el Senado. Si los republicanos ganan la Cámara Baja o el Senado, tienen la posibilidad de impedir gran parte de lo que Biden y los demócratas esperan conseguir antes de 2024, cuando se celebrarán las próximas elecciones presidenciales. Habrá que despedirse de cualquier legislación demócrata importante.Por otro lado, si los demócratas conservan el control de la cámara baja y aumentan su ventaja en el Senado, tal vez tengan más capacidad para aprobar leyes nuevas. Y, dado que los senadores tienen mandatos de seis años, aumentar la ventaja ahora les daría un respiro en 2024, cuando los analistas dicen que los republicanos probablemente se vean muy favorecidos.Si los republicanos obtienen más poder, es posible que bloqueen los esfuerzos demócratas para codificar el derecho al aborto y tomar medidas sobre el clima, y que cuestionen la ayuda enviada a Ucrania.Históricamente, al partido que controla la presidencia —actualmente los demócratas— le ha ido mal en las elecciones de medio mandato. Sarah Silbiger para The New York TimesLos republicanos podrían obtener facultades para investigar e impugnarSi los republicanos toman una o ambas cámaras, podrían utilizar sus nuevos poderes para crear una avalancha de investigaciones sobre los demócratas, como los partidos de la oposición han hecho durante mucho tiempo en Washington. Con citatorios y audiencias judiciales, podrían poner de relieve supuestas incompetencias o presuntas irregularidades en diversos temas, como el allanamiento al club privado y residencia del expresidente Donald Trump en agosto, la retirada de Afganistán y la respuesta a la pandemia.Los demócratas esperan que Biden y su familia estén entre los objetivos de tales pesquisas, junto con el doctor Anthony Fauci, uno de los principales asesores médicos de los gobiernos de Trump y Biden.Algunos republicanos también se han comprometido a someter al presidente a un juicio político, un complicado proceso que podría obligar a Biden a comparecer ante el Senado, como ocurrió con Trump en los juicios políticos de 2020 y 2021. El senador Ted Cruz, republicano de Texas, dijo el año pasado que habría una “enorme presión” sobre una Cámara Baja republicana para llevar a Biden a juicio, “esté justificado o no”.Un poder importante del Senado: aprobar la designación de juecesEl control del Senado incluye el poder de aprobar a los jueces de los tribunales federales, incluyendo la Corte Suprema. Si los republicanos reclaman el control, existe el riesgo de que usen su poder para bloquear los nombramientos de Biden.Cuando el presidente Barack Obama, un demócrata, tuvo que trabajar con un Senado controlado por los republicanos, estos bloquearon la nominación que hizo para la Corte Suprema en 2016. En cambio, Trump logró acelerar la aprobación de tres nombramientos a la Corte, gracias a un Senado favorable.Aunque no son tan notorios, los nombramientos a tribunales inferiores en ocasiones también son muy influyentes. Como presidentes, tanto Trump como Biden han usado el control del Senado por su propio partido para instalar a decenas de jueces de su agrado en puestos importantes en todo el país.Las elecciones estatales podrían tener gran repercusión en temas como el derecho al aborto y el votoEn 36 estados se elegirá gobernador. Además de las otras facultades que tendrán, podrían ser muy influyentes a la hora de determinar si el aborto sigue siendo legal en varios estados.Las contiendas para la Secretaría de Estado de cada estado no suelen recibir mucha atención, pero este año han atraído un gran interés debido al papel que desempeñan en la supervisión de las elecciones. Podría convertirse en un puesto importante si hay disputas electorales en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024, y algunos de los republicanos postulados en estados clave apoyaron las falsas afirmaciones de Trump de que le robaron las elecciones de 2020.Daniel Victor es un reportero de temas generales residenciado en Londres que antes trabajó en Hong Kong y Nueva York. Se unió al Times en 2012. @bydanielvictor More
- in Elections
Don’t Buy the Republican Appeal to Workers
J.D. Vance, the Ohio Republican Senate candidate, states on his campaign website that he “fiercely defended working-class Americans.” In Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican Senate hopeful, sports a plaid shirt and jeans in a campaign ad, as he shoots guns of varying sizes. Guitar twangs in the background complete the scene.Mr. Vance, a venture capitalist and best-selling author, and Dr. Oz, the heart surgeon and TV personality, aren’t alone in their self-presentation as ordinary Joes. As November’s midterm elections near, many Republican candidates are all about pickup trucks, bluejeans and guns, as they perform the role of champions for the working stiff. Scratch the surface, though, and it’s a different story.This Republican working-class veneer is playacting. Their positions on workers’ rights make that crystal clear. Nationwide, most Republicans rail against liberal elites and then block a $15 an hour minimum wage, paid leave laws and workplace safety protections. They stymie bills to help workers unionize, and top it off by starving the National Labor Relations Board of funding, even as it faces a surge of union election requests. Several Republican attorneys general have sued to stop wage hikes for nearly 400,000 people working for federal contractors. Republicans also opposed extending the popular monthly child tax credit that helped so many working families afford basic necessities. The “issues” section on the campaign websites of Mr. Vance and Dr. Oz contain virtually no labor policy. Howling about China, as they do, isn’t a comprehensive labor plan.In other instances, what superficially seemed to be examples of Republican support for worker rights were really Trojan horse incursions to advance their culture war.For example, legislators or policymakers in at least six conservative states last year swiftly expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance to workers who quit or were fired for refusing to comply with employer Covid-19 vaccination mandates. The sudden largess was at odds with these states’ generally miserly approach to such benefits: They’d previously done most everything possible to limit the lifeline of unemployment insurance, including prematurely cutting off federally funded benefits in the summer of 2021.Only a sliver of the national work force dug in and refused to be vaccinated, including a small number of New York City employees recently granted reinstatement to their jobs by a Staten Island trial court judge. But anti-vax workers were stark outliers in relation to the vast majority of their peers, from United Airlines employees to Massachusetts state employees, who overwhelmingly complied with mandates.Why did these conservative Republicans suddenly want a safety net for unvaccinated workers? Because it served a culture war narrative, one that frames everything in divisive us-versus-them terms and in the case of vaccines, sees them as a nefarious liberal plot and vaccine-or-test mandates as one more example of government overreach.To that point, consider two legal cases, one brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when its enforcement arm was led by a Trump appointee, and another heard by the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices are Republican appointees. Both cases involved workers — but neither touched on pocketbook or dignity issues central to most workers’ concerns.The E.E.O.C. case involved two Kroger workers who claimed religious discrimination after being fired for refusing to wear company-issued aprons bearing a heart-shaped logo they saw as promoting gay rights. (In pretrial depositions, both workers were shown a range of corporate logos, and the workers said several of them also represented gay rights and were incompatible with their religion; they included the logos of NBC, Google, Southwest and Apple, as well as the Olympic rings.) A Trump-appointed federal judge in Arkansas rejected Krogers’ motion to end the case, ordering the case to trial, and earlier this month, the company and commission said they had reached a deal to resolve the dispute.In a Supreme Court case that became a national right-wing cause célèbre, the six conservative justices ruled that a Washington State school district violated the free speech and religious rights of a public school football coach who insisted on praying very publicly after games with students at midfield, rejecting more private locations that were offered.In light of genuine worker struggles in our country, these are the workers conservatives go to bat for? It seems the trickle-down crowd finds their inner Norma Rae only if it helps them “own the libs.” These aren’t workers’ rights issues. They’re divisive culture war battles that happen to occur in the employment arena. For ordinary workers, living paycheck to paycheck, who just want a safe place to work, decent pay, and some dignity, conservatives are AWOL.The praying coach and Kroger worker cases involved First Amendment and religious rights. But the most common example of silenced expression occurs when workers get fired for reporting labor law violations or supporting a union. How many Republicans have spoken up to support the expressive rights of unionizing Starbucks or Amazon workers?Similarly, Republicans may prioritize benefits for their favored workers (such as people who are unvaccinated), but all workers need a functioning safety net, including an adequately funded and functional unemployment insurance system. What’s also essential are robust and broadly available programs for paid family and medical leave, paid sick leave and universal health care, measures most Republicans have repeatedly opposed. In this context, the rush to ensure unemployment benefits to people refusing a lifesaving vaccine is cynical, indeed.Workers need safe conditions, good wages, fair treatment and a collective voice on the job. The culture war labor incursions are divorced from what matters most to our country’s working people.As the midterms approach, Republican candidates may play dress-up in plaids and work boots, as they vie for the votes of our nation’s workers. But even a pickup truck laden with bluejeans and hard hats can’t camouflage the callous facts. The absurdity of the worker causes Republicans champion should drive home the truth to wavering voters: these candidates don’t care about the real needs of working people.Terri Gerstein is a fellow at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School and the Economic Policy Institute. She spent more than 17 years enforcing labor laws in New York State, working in the state attorney general’s office and as a deputy labor commissioner.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
- in Elections
A Beginner’s Guide to the U.S. Midterm Elections
What’s at stake, and how does it work? Let’s start with the basics.If you are broadly aware that the upcoming midterm elections in the United States have major global implications, but you’re not up to speed on the American system of government or you’re having trouble following along, you’re in the right place.In the United States’ two-party system, control of two crucial bodies of government — the Senate and the House of Representatives — is essential for getting laws made, and it will be decided by a vote on Nov. 8. Democrats currently control both bodies and the presidency, and losing either the House or the Senate to Republicans would significantly decrease Democrats’ power in the next two years of President Biden’s term.Hundreds of elections will take place, but many candidates are considered shoo-ins and control in each body will most likely be decided by a few tight races.I need the basics: What is decided in this election?The Senate, which is now at a 50-50 deadlock but is controlled by Democrats because Vice President Kamala Harris casts the tiebreaking vote, has 100 members, with two from each of the 50 states. There are 34 seats up for grabs in November, and winners serve six-year terms.The House, with 435 voting members, is controlled by the Democrats, 222 to 213. All 435 seats are up for election, with winners serving two-year terms.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.The odds are against Democrats, but this has been a strange year.Historically, the party that controls the presidency — currently the Democrats — has fared poorly in the midterms. Frustration with the president often leads to success for the other party, and Mr. Biden has low approval ratings.Currently, Republicans are favored to win the House, and the Senate is considered a tossup, according to FiveThirtyEight. Democrats enjoyed a major polling bump after the Supreme Court made an unpopular ruling in June that removed the constitutional right to abortion, giving the party hope that it could defy historical trends, but that advantage has mostly faded.Read more here on how to follow the polls and the predictions, and on the wide range of outcomes possible.Why it matters: If Democrats lose control of either body, Biden’s agenda is in trouble.In highly polarized times, it is exceedingly difficult to pass legislation unless one party controls the presidency, the House and the Senate. If Republicans win either the House or the Senate, they can prevent much of what Mr. Biden and the Democrats would hope to accomplish before 2024, the next presidential election. You could kiss any major Democratic legislation goodbye.On the other hand, if Democrats hold onto the House and increase their lead in the Senate, it could give them more ability to pass new laws. And, since senators serve six-year terms, running up a lead now would give them some breathing room in 2024, when analysts say Republicans are likely to be highly favored..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.If Republicans gain power, they could block Democratic efforts to codify abortion rights and take action on the climate, and question the aid sent to Ukraine.Historically, the party that controls the presidency — currently the Democrats — has fared poorly in the midterms. Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesRepublicans could gain investigative and impeachment powers.If the Republicans take one or both of the chambers, they could use their new powers to create an onslaught of investigations into Democrats, as opposition parties have long done in Washington. With subpoenas and court hearings, they could highlight perceived incompetence or alleged wrongdoing on a variety of subjects, including the search of former President Donald J. Trump’s private club and residence in August, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the pandemic response.Democrats expect that Mr. Biden and his family would be among the targets, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top medical adviser in the Trump and Biden administrations.Some Republicans have also pledged to impeach the president, a complicated process that could force Mr. Biden to stand trial in the Senate, as Mr. Trump did for separate impeachments in 2020 and 2021. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican, said last year that there would be “enormous pressure” on a Republican House to impeach Mr. Biden “whether it’s justified or not.”An important power of the Senate: Approving court nominations.Control of the Senate includes the power to approve federal court justices, up to and including the Supreme Court. If Republicans claim control, they could use their power to block President Biden’s nominations.When President Barack Obama, a Democrat, had to work with a Republican-controlled Senate, the Republicans blocked his Supreme Court nomination in 2016. But Mr. Trump was able to speed through three Supreme Court nominations, thanks to the friendly Senate.Though not as high-profile, lower-court nominations can also be highly influential. As president, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden have used same-party Senate control to appoint dozens of their preferred judges to important posts across the nation.State races could have a huge effect on issues like abortion rights and voting.A governor will be elected in 36 states. Among other powers, they could be highly influential in determining whether abortion remains legal in several states.The races for each state’s secretary of state do not usually receive much attention, but this year they have attracted major interest because of the office’s role in overseeing elections. It could become a key position if there are election disputes in the 2024 presidential election, and some of the Republicans running in key states supported Mr. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. More
- in Elections
Alito Says Leak of Ruling Overturning Roe Put Justices’ Lives at Risk
The leak of a draft opinion, he said, “gave people a rational reason to think” the eventual decision could be prevented “by killing one of us.”WASHINGTON — The leak of his draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade put the Supreme Court justices in the majority at risk of assassination, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during wide-ranging remarks in a public interview on Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative legal group.“It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,” he said. “It was a shock, because nothing like that had happened in the past. It certainly changed the atmosphere at the court for the remainder of last term.”“The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us,” Justice Alito said.He said the idea was hardly fanciful, noting an attempt on the life of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. A California man armed with a pistol, a knife and other weapons was arrested in June near Justice Kavanaugh’s Maryland home and charged with attempted murder. Among other things, the man said he was upset with the leaked draft suggesting the court would overturn Roe, the police have said.The leaked draft was published by Politico in early May, while the decision itself was issued in late June. The decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding.Understand the Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More
- in Elections
Senator Graham Asks Supreme Court to Spare Him From Testifying in Georgia
Mr. Graham has been fighting a subpoena requiring him to appear before a special grand jury examining efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss.ATLANTA — Senator Lindsey Graham asked the Supreme Court on Friday to stay a lower court’s order that would force him to testify before a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in Georgia.The appeal by Mr. Graham, the South Carolina Republican and Trump confidant, is the latest in a protracted legal fight that he has been waging to defy a subpoena requiring him to answer questions before the special grand jury in Atlanta. Dozens of witnesses have already testified in the secret proceedings. Some, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other lawyers aligned with Mr. Trump, have tried unsuccessfully to avoid traveling to Atlanta to do so.But none has fought as long or as hard as Mr. Graham, who was subpoenaed in July. Soon after, he had the matter moved to the federal court system, arguing that forcing him to testify would raise constitutional issues. He pointed to the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which says that members of Congress cannot be questioned on matters pertaining to their legislative duties.On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta rejected the argument that the Speech and Debate Clause fully shielded Mr. Graham from having to testify. Mr. Graham responded with an emergency application on Friday, asking the Supreme Court for a stay while he appeals the ruling, and, if necessary, a ruling enjoining the special grand jury from questioning him until the appeal is resolved. The filing notes that Mr. Graham was issued a fresh subpoena on Friday compelling him to testify on Nov. 17.“Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative body about his protected ‘Speech or Debate’ related to the 2020 election,” Mr. Graham’s lawyers wrote in the filing. “This will occur despite the Constitution’s command that Senators ‘shall not be questioned’ about ‘any Speech or Debate.’”Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More
- in Elections
This Is What Happens When Election Deniers Let Their Freak Flag Fly
Here’s a prediction: If Donald Trump is on the ballot in 2024, there is little reason to think that the United States will have a smooth and uncomplicated presidential election.Just the opposite, of course. Republican candidates for governor and secretary of state who are aligned with Trump have promised, repeatedly and in public, to subvert any election result that doesn’t favor the former president if he runs again.On Saturday, for example, the Republican nominee for secretary of state in Nevada, Jim Marchant, told a crowd at a rally for Trump and the statewide Republican ticket that his victory — Marchant’s victory, that is — would help put Trump back into the White House.“President Trump and I lost an election in 2020 because of a rigged election,” Marchant said, with Trump by his side. “I’ve been working since Nov. 4, 2020, to expose what happened. And what I found out is horrifying. And when I’m secretary of state of Nevada, we’re going to fix it. And when my coalition of secretary of state candidates around the country get elected, we’re going to fix the whole country and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024.”This is very different from a de rigueur promise to help a candidate win votes. Marchant, a former state assemblyman, believes (or at least says he believes) that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party stole the 2020 presidential election away from Trump, whom he regards as the rightful and legitimate president.He said as much last year, in an interview with Eddie Floyd, a Nevada radio host with a taste for electoral conspiracy theories: “The 2020 election was a totally rigged election. Whenever I speak, I ask everybody in the audience, I says, ‘Is there anybody here that really believes Joe Biden was legitimately elected?’ And everywhere I go, not one hand goes up. Nobody believes that he was legitimately elected.”Marchant, as he noted in his rally speech, leads a coalition of 2020 election-denying America First candidates for governor and secretary of state. It’s a who’s who of MAGA Republicans, including Kari Lake and Mark Finchem of Arizona, Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania and Kristina Karamo of Michigan.If elected, any one of these candidates could, at a minimum, create chaos in vote casting and vote counting and the certification of election results. Marchant, for example, has said that he wants to eliminate same-day voting, mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes. He also wants to dump machine ballot tabulation and move to hand counts, which are time-consuming, expensive and much less accurate.That’s the point, of course. The problem for election-denying candidates is that ordinarily the process is too straightforward and the results are too clear. Confusion sows doubt, and doubt gives these Republicans the pretext they need to claim fraud and seize control of the allocation of electoral votes.Congress could circumvent much of this with its revised Electoral Count Act, which appears to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But if the act passes, the danger does not end there. Even if Congress closes the loopholes in the certification of electoral votes, the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court could still give state legislatures free rein to run roughshod over the popular will.This is not theoretical. In Moore v. Harper, which will be heard later this term, the court will weigh in on the “independent state legislature” theory, a once-rejected claim that was reintroduced to conservative legal thinking in a concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It was later embraced by the conservative legal movement in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, when lawyers for Donald Trump seized on the theory as a pretext for invalidating ballots in swing states where courts and election officials used their legal authority to expand ballot access without direct legislative approval. Under the independent state legislature theory, the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive and plenary power to change state election law, unbound by state constitutions and state courts.This, as I’ve discussed in a previous column, is nonsense. It rests on a selective interpretation of a single word in a single clause, divorced from the structure of the Constitution as well as the context of its creation, namely the effort by national elites to strengthen federal authority and limit the influence of the states.Why, in other words, would the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution essentially reinscribe the fundamental assumption of the Articles of Confederation — the exclusive sovereignty of the states — in a document designed to supersede them? As J. Michael Luttig, a legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (appointed by George H.W. Bush), wrote in a recent essay for The Atlantic, “There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions.”But the total lack of support for the independent state legislature theory in American history or constitutional law may not stop the Supreme Court from affirming it in the Constitution, if the conservative majority believes it might give the Republican Party a decisive advantage in future election contests. And it would. Under the strongest forms of the independent state legislature theory, state lawmakers could allocate electoral votes against the will of the voters if they concluded that the election was somehow tainted or illegitimate.Which brings us back to the election deniers running in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Victory for the election deniers in any state would, in combination with any version of the independent state legislature theory, put the United States on the glide path to an acutely felt constitutional crisis. We may face a situation where the voters of Nevada or Wisconsin want Joe Biden (or another Democrat) for president, but state officials and lawmakers want Trump, and have the power to make it so.One of the more ominous developments of the past few years is the way that conservatives have rejected the language of American democracy, saying instead that the United States is a “republic and not a democracy,” in a direct lift from Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, who made the phrase a rallying cry against social and political equality. This rests on a distinction between the words “democracy” and “republic” that doesn’t really exist in practice. “During the eighteenth century,” the political scientist Robert Dahl once observed, “the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’ were used interchangeably in both common and philosophical usage.”But there is a school of political thought called republicanism, which rests on principles of non-domination and popular sovereignty, and it was a major influence on the American revolutionaries, including the framers of the Constitution. “The fundamental maxim of republican government,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, “requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” Likewise, James Madison wrote at the end of his life that the “vital principle” of “republican government” is the “lex majoris partis — the will of the majority.”Election deniers, and much of the Republican Party at this point in time, reject democracy and the equality it implies. But what’s key is that they also reject republicanism and the fundamental principle of popular government. Put simply, they see Donald Trump as their sovereign as much as their president, and they hope to make him a kind of king.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
- in Elections
America Has a Ginni Thomas Problem
Clarence and Virginia (Ginni) Thomas don’t discuss their dueling efforts to destroy our democracy when they come home from a day of wreaking havoc.That’s what Ms. Thomas, a conservative activist and an adherent to the lie that Donald Trump won the last election, wants us to believe. That’s essentially what she told the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol when it interviewed her last week.I don’t believe that any more than I believe Trump can declassify documents with his mind.Why does this matter? Because Ms. Thomas pressed the White House and various state legislators to overturn the 2020 election, and her husband has refused to recuse himself from election-related cases. In fact, Justice Thomas was the Supreme Court’s lone dissent when it rejected Trump’s efforts to withhold documents from the Jan. 6 committee.In March, The National Law Journal spoke with several experts who agreed that Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the case. One called his refusal to do so “arguably unprecedented.”Ms. Thomas didn’t just encourage people to overturn the election; she was at the Stop the Steal rally from which the insurrection sprang on Jan. 6, although she told The Washington Free Beacon that she returned home before Trump took the stage.In other words, Ms. Thomas is a one-woman constitutional crisis.According to The New York Times, during her testimony before the committee, Ms. Thomas repeated her assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. That is a lie. She knows it, and we know it.Because she is repeating this lie, I can’t believe anything she says without proof. Therefore, her claim that she never discussed her election subversion activities with her husband rings hollow.Did she also not share with him her seemingly deranged Facebook posts framing the teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting as “dangerous to the survival of our nation” or espousing the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wiretapped Trump?Is the Thomas household just silent, filled only with the hum of grievance and betrayal? Or do these spend their time talking in trivialities, reminiscing about their polar opposite upbringings — him born in the predominately Black, Gullah community of Pin Point, Ga., her born in predominantly white Omaha, Neb., which at the time was facing its own racial tensions?Maybe they share maleficent chuckles recalling how he rebuffed questions at his confirmation hearing in 1991 over the allegations that he sexually harassed Anita Hill, calling it, absurdly, a “high-tech lynching,” or how Ms. Thomas in 2010 left a voice mail message for Hill, demanding that she apologize to her husband.According to The Times, the message was: “Good morning, Anita Hill. It’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”What?! Ma’am, if you don’t stop playing on that lady’s phone!The ask was brazen. It was disrespectful. It was delusional. But that’s Ginni Thomas.Sure, maybe the woman with the audacity to call her husband’s accuser and ask that person to apologize to the man she says abused her is too bashful at home to raise her most recent antics with her husband. But it seems unlikely; for years, journalists have documented how close and forthright Justice and Ms. Thomas are with each other. As early as 1991, the year he was confirmed, one of his longtime friends, Evan Kemp, told The Washington Post that she was the one person he really listened to.In the same article, one of Ms. Thomas’s aunts is quoted as saying Justice Thomas “was so nice, we forgot he was Black.” She added, “And he treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being Black.”Can you imagine? How must it feel to marry into a family where people think of your Blackness as a weight on the wrong side of the scales and you have to achieve at the highest level to balance it out? Of course, Justice Thomas may not object to that characterization. But he and his wife may still spend their quiet time unpacking it.Ms. Thomas is not a minor player and outside agitator. She is connected and influential. According to The Times, she led a group of hard-right activists in a White House meeting with Trump where “members of the group denounced transgender people and women serving in the military.”According to the paper, one of the people the group asked to have at the meeting was an assistant Ms. Thomas hired after the conservative group Turning Point USA fired the person for texting a colleague, “I hate Black people.”Since Ms. Thomas is married to a Black man, I can’t make any of that make sense. Maybe, like her aunt, she forgot Justice Thomas was Black.But the major issue remains: The wife of a Supreme Court justice has been actively engaged in trying to overturn an election, and the justice won’t recuse himself from any cases related to that issue. They are Mr. and Mrs. Mutiny.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More
