The Court v. The Voters
The Troubling Story of How the Supreme Court Has Undermined Voting Rights
-
- $12.99
-
- $12.99
Publisher Description
An urgent and gripping look at the erosion of voting rights and its implications for democracy, told through the stories of 9 Supreme Court decisions—and the next looming case
In The Court v. The Voters, law professor Joshua Douglas takes us behind the scenes of significant cases in voting rights—some surprising and unknown, some familiar—to investigate the historic crossroads that have irrevocably changed our elections and the nation. In crisp and accessible prose, Douglas tells the story of each case, sheds light on the intractable election problems we face as a result, and highlights the unique role the highest court has played in producing a broken electoral system.
Douglas charts infamous cases like:
Bush v. Gore, which opened the door to many election law claimsCitizens United, which contributed to skewed representation—but perhaps not in the way you might thinkShelby County v. Holder, which gutted the vital protections of the Voting Rights ActCrawford v. Marion County Elections Board, which allowed states to enforce voter ID laws and make it harder for people to vote
The Court v. The Voters powerfully reminds us of the tangible, real-world effects from the Court’s voting rights decisions. While we can—and should—lament the democracy that might have been, Douglas argues that we can—and should—double down in our efforts to protect the right to vote.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
The Supreme Court has been undermining voting rights for 50 years, according to this full-throated critique. Legal scholar Douglas (Vote for US) not only covers major turning points like Shelby v. Holder, the 2013 case in which the court overruled the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which in 2010 opened the floodgates of corporate money in U.S. elections; he also digs into more minor cases to show how they have been fashioned by conservative justices into the building blocks of what he suggests is the court's explicit project to curtail voting rights, especially under Chief Justice John Roberts. Such cases include one concerned with who can run on a presidential ballot as an independent, and another focused on when write-in votes can be made. In these cases, Douglas characterizes Roberts as a crafty jurist consciously planting the seeds that will undermine voting rights in future cases by adding "dicta," or items not central to the decision, and constructing opinions with a feigned narrowness (like in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, a precursor to Shelby) that he later uses to argue for substantive changes in the law. This granular analysis, though somewhat speculative since it relies on reading between the lines, adds up to a shockingly convincing explanation of the court's motives. Douglas brings the receipts.
