Analysis: How the Supreme Court has tilted election law to favor the Republican Party

Biden asks Vice President Kamala Harris to lead his administration’s efforts to protect voting rights as many states work to add restrictions.The court’s redistricting decisions alone could be enough to shift control in the U.S. House next year, according to Michael Li, a scholar at the Brennan Center. This will be the first cycle of redistricting in more than 50 years in which the Southern states may put their election maps into effect immediately.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s and for some time beyond, the Supreme Court spoke of voting as a fundamental right, one judges had a duty to protect. Harvard Law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who teaches election law, said he wouldn’t speculate about the intent of the justices. “But across the right to vote, redistricting, the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance, the court’s decisions have benefited Republicans,” he said. “And partisan advantage explains these decisions better than rival hypotheses like originalism, precedent, or judicial nonintervention.

Republicans did not invent gerrymandering. Democrats led the way in the past. But when Republicans won big in the 2010 midterm election, they drew election districts to lock in their party’s control. When challenged in court, the Supreme Court sided with the states over their voters.to uphold North Carolina’s Republican legislators whose gerrymandered map all but assured Republicans would hold 10 of 13 seats in Congress, even if Democrats won more votes statewide.

They cited Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that ended a recount of paper card ballots in Florida, preserving George W. Bush’s narrow victory in 2000. “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election,” the court said, adding that even then, the state could still take back the power to appoint the electors who ultimately choose the president.

That pesky constitution.

SavysuzyRises The far right SCOTUS are trying to prevent the 'normalization' of LGBTQIssues They feel their white bread world, the one they knew, would one day be gone. Jesus preached love not segregation. So many live as hypocritical Christians today. No wonder its in our Supreme Court.

B$

This is Reason 1 that Biden should look to expand the SCOTUS. It will not go well for the citizens vote in the near future between State GQP gerrymandering, voter suppression and outright control of presidential electors. There is no guarantee of individual right to vote.

POTUS expand scotus now Joe before voter suppression and anti diversity laws and anti-abortion laws make it up to that useless Institution known as the Supreme Court and correct the manipulation that the GOP has done to it

PLEASE LEARN LOVE.

Biden better appoint more Supreme court judges.

The Supreme Court is packed with republicans so no justice for Americans till we change their numbers and add liberals.

Bullshit

It’s a coup by technicality and if that doesn’t work plan B is a coup by force.

When you have no ideas to run on.

Radical Republicans can't win elections on their failed policies, so they lie about Voter Fraud in order to Pass Legislation designed to make it harder for Americans to engage in their Constitutional Rights to Vote.

New voting restrictions across the South may seem a response to the 2020 election, but its origins stem in part from the Supreme Court, which over the last decade has reshaped election law to elevate state lawmakers over the rights of their voters.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Supreme Court sides with police officer who improperly searched license plate databaseThe Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a federal cybercrime law, holding that a policeman who improperly accessed a license plate database could not be charged under the law. What is the 4th amendment anyway? ExpandTheSCOTUS
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »

Unusual Supreme Court majority narrows scope of computer anti-hacking lawSupreme Court limits computer fraud law to those who wrongly gain access to confidential files, not those who misuse data they're authorized to see. And yet, the story doesn’t say why the majority is “unusual”
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »

Supreme Court Draws Limit to Anti-Hacking LawThree Trump nominees and three liberal justices limit a computer-hacking law’s application to individuals who break into computer systems, rather than extend it to authorized users who pull information for personal or improper purposes. My first experience happens to be a failure but i never gave up cause i knew it was going to work out for me trying continuously, fortunately i'm smiling today by getting involved with AmeliaMaveric An obvious error! Waiting for how Dems will spin this into further proof of need to pack the court.
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »

Trump's 3 Supreme Court appointees joined the 3 liberal justices to limit a landmark federal cybercrime lawBusiness Insider tells the global tech, finance, markets, media, healthcare, and strategy stories you want to know.
Source: BusinessInsider - 🏆 729. / 51 Read more »