COVID-19 has highlighted many problems in global governmental systems ever since its initial outbreak in late 2019. However, after reading the New York Times Article “Supreme Court Blocks Extended Voting in Wisconsin” by Adam Liptak, a new form of issues can be found. Not the gap in health care accessibility or the American public’s ability to cooperate with a stay at home order, but rather the continued corruption of American governmental systems, in this particular case with the Supreme Court and its’ party-biased rulings on voting laws, that negatively affects the voting rights of Americans.
This article specifically highlights a rather blatant issue that arose in the Wisconsin primaries. Wisconsin issued a stay at home order because of COVID-19 on March 24, 2020 which was to remain in place until April 24, 2020, however, their primaries were scheduled to be held on April 7th. Although voting was included in the list of activities one was allowed to leave home for, many people did not want to risk their health during this unprecedented pandemic and decided to order absentee ballots instead. However, there was such a surge of absentee ballot requests that hardly anyone was able to receive their ballot by the 7th, let alone be able to send it in for processing. The solution, lawmakers assumed, seemed to be a simple one, extend the deadline until April 13th in order to allow voters more time to get their vote in. However, other lawmakers deemed this wrong and even unconstitutional as there has never been an extension granted in the past.
Both sides make a valid point. The first side claims that the world is in a state of emergency that has not been seen in over a hundred years, and with the resources available (the internet and more effective mail service), the deadline should be extended so as to protect the health of voters while still allowing for their voices to be heard. The other side maintains a more staunch perspective that America has survived both of the World Wars, the Spanish Influenza, 9/11 and many other disruptive world changing events and did not offer voting extensions then, so why should they offer them now. If an extension is offered in this scenario who is to say people won’t try to gain extensions for all future scenarios in order to rally more votes. This is a predicament, but the supreme court ruled in favor of prohibiting the extension in accordance with the second group.
Although the concept of the topic is interesting to debate with many sides and many valid points, this situation takes a turn towards true democratic erosion when political parties get involved. The Wisconsin Democrats wanted an extension because there were enough Republican votes to ensure Donald Trump won the primary in their state, and they wanted to see if there were more people who had not yet voted that would change the tides. The Wisconsin Republicans did not want an extension for the same reason. They could not come to a decision about the extension in the state courts, so they sent it to the Supreme Court who ruled 5:4 in support of the Republicans’ side prohibiting the vote. Right now the current rate of Conservative-leaning to Liberal-leaning Supreme Court justices is 5:4, which leads to the theory that parties are interfering with voting rights on the judicial level. The four who wanted to allow an extension were Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, all of whom have traditionally Liberal ideologies, whereas Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts and Thomas have traditionally Conservative ideologies and all voted to oppose the extension.
As Huq and Ginsberg state in their essay “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy,” the legislative branches have always utilized gerrymandering as a means of swaying and affecting voting rights as their own threat to democracy, but the judicial branch is, in theory, supposed to remain neutral and only debate whether or not a law is constitutional. However, the Supreme Court ruling on voting rights issues is not a new thing. In the 2018 hearing of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court ruled to allow Ohio to continue its voting purge laws, which greatly disenfranchise those who are not able to participate in all of the small elections. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled to change a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to allow certain states more leniency on changing voting laws. The one thing in common with each of these cases is the ruling of 5:4, in favor of a the majority party at the time. The irony is, the Supreme Court was designed by the founding fathers to remain neutral and uphold the constitution, yet by making these decisions in favor of their political biases, they are being unconstitutional.
The most crucial part of a democracy, according to Robert Dahl’s 1972 essay “Democratization and Public Opinion,” is free and fair elections. But elections cannot be free and fair if laws are constantly being changed to disenfranchise certain peoples. However, voting disenfranchisement has existed in America since its conception and will probably exist until its end, but it’s the unbiased sections of government that are supposed to protect the citizens constitutional right to vote, and when they start becoming biased and party-motivated, there are no more safeguards against deconsolidation. So, the ruling in Wisconsin is a highly debatable issue with many good points, but the truth is, the ruling should not have been decided based on one party’s benefits or another but rather based on what is best for the people in this time, since that’s the purpose of a democracy, to be for the people and by the people.
Franklin Garcia
An astute observation on how the judicial branch is being used to help the outcome of the primaries. It also It is no coincidence that the two associate judges the Trump administration put in the court voted against the extension. Although we are living in an unprecedented time of a pandemic, it is only reasonable to allow a one-time extension to the voting process. Nothing is lost and much gained through enabling it, such as freedom and liberty. Another thing to note is that it is almost as if the Republican Party did not want to outright ban voting, but made it nearly impossible for a majority of people to do so. Also taking into account that Wisconsin is a majority democratic state. This is an excellent example of stealth authoritarianism. More specifically, a mechanism Varol would consider an electoral barrier to entry, although on a minor scale.
Malik Rose
The main point presented states how the Supreme Court is contributing to Democratic Erosion and be being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is taking sides when it is to remain neutral. The various cases listed such as Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, Shelby County v. Holder, and the most recent on referenced “Supreme Court Blocks Extended Voting in Wisconsin.” These cases show the Supreme Court going against its duty, which is to be neutral and not take sides when cases come before them. The synopsis about each case is explained in your post and states how the “Supreme Court Blocks Extended Voting in Wisconsin” case there was an issue about creating an extension for voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Wisconsin issued stay at home orders from March 24 to April 24, but their primaries were on April 7, which immediately causes an issue. There were two sides; one advocated an extension date to the 13th, and the other side disagreed since there was nothing similar to this before, and due that, they did not agree with a voting extension.
I agree with your statement that both sides claim to make sense and have valid reasoning. The motive behind the extension for the Democrats was to change the tide in their favor, and, for the Republicans, it was to keep it in their favor. Since they could not agree, the case went the Supreme Court in which its results were 5:4 in which those that were Conservatives were five and the Liberals were four. Those that are in the Supreme Court are to remain neutral but swayed to their political viewpoint, whether Conservative or Liberal. This causes Democratic Erosion and shows Authoritarianism from the Republican Party and Trump Administration. They did not give the citizens of Wisconsin an extension so that they could not get more people to vote and use their “voice” to choose whom they supported. That is voter suppression. It is not as if the citizens did not want to vote. It is because it was not safe, and due to the stay at home order, many people could not vote and that helps the motive of the Trump Administration who was winning at the moment. It shows Democratic Erosion as to where it is not fair what they are doing, and it makes the democracy that we have more look like the actions of an authoritative leader. The actions of the Trump Administration mirror those of an authoritative leader. It is not always blatant more so secretly; nevertheless, they reflect one and is making democracy slowly but surely seem like it will fade away and be something of the past.
The book “How Democracies Die” is written by Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. They explain how democracies die and how Donald Trump has become a factor in how democracies die. Ziblatt states that democracies do not just die overnight; there is a gradual chipping away at it. In relation to Donald Trump and how his actions mirror an authoritarians leader, Ziblatt also states that electoral authoritarians come to power democratically, using democracies to their favor, and that is what Donald Trump has done. Nancy Bermeo wrote an article on “Democratic Backsliding” she refers to how elections can be manipulated. Bermeo states that “Strategic manipulation denotes a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents. These include hampering media access, using government funds for incumbent campaigns, keeping opposition candidates off the ballot, hampering voter registration, packing electoral commissions, changing electoral rules to favor incumbents, and harassing opponents—but all done in such a way that the elections themselves do not appear fraudulent.” (Bermeo 13) These points presented by Bermeo, Levitsky, and Ziblatt all explain how democracy is at risk and how it can be put at risk. These are all factors of Democratic Erosion and how it can be seen today and how they can be seen in the Trump Administration, making Donald Trump a threat to democracy.
Patrick McGovern
I thought this was a really interesting point on the effect of the judicial branch on primary elections in the United States. This passage was especially helpful in outlining specific examples of this happening, namely the Wisconsin extended voting issue. The heavy, blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court is a frightening event, but one I think a lot of people somewhat anticipated when Trump began making picks. I don’t see how, in the situation of extended voting, anything is really lost with an extension. Additionally, I believe special accommodation should be given in these unique, pandemic circumstances. That said, because there is so much republican pushback on an, I believe, pretty unreasonable issue, it highlights a bit more how much of a partisan, snakey issue this is becoming.