Tag: Supreme Court

Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) has introduced a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case. (Read the ruling and many reactions and commentaries at the SCOTUS blog.)

Boswell is looking for co-sponsors and explained the case for amending the constitution:

“I have introduced this important legislation because the Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans,” Boswell said in a statement. “The court’s elevation of corporate speech inevitably overpowers the speech and interests of human citizens who do not have the coffers to speak as loudly.”

Boswell said House Joint Resolution 68 would disallow a corporation or labor organization from using any operating funds or any other funds from its general treasury to pay for an advertisement in connection with a federal election campaign, regardless of whether or not the advertisement expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specified candidate.

“Corporations already have an active role in American political discourse through million-dollar political action committees and personal donations to campaigns,” Boswell said. “The legislation I introduced will prevent the Wall Street corporations that received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars from turning around and pouring that same money into candidates that will prevent financial regulation on their industry. No American should have to turn on the TV and see AIG telling them how to vote.”

Five Republicans are running against seven-term incumbent Boswell in this D+1 district. Most Iowa observers consider Brad Zaun and Jim Gibbons the front-runners. Dave Funk has the backing of the Tea Party crowd, and I love his tweets that begin, “Congress needs Funk.” Mark Rees is staking out a moderate position, and I have no idea what Pat Bertroche is doing in this race.

Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter today, making her the third woman and first Hispanic ever nominated for the High Court.  Folks rarely vote over judicial nominations (evangelical voters aside), but she could generate a lot of ripple effects.  Already, the conventional wisdom from several pundits is that this will put Republicans in a bind – they’d be opposing history if they try to block Sotomayor’s appointment.  Yet, as SCOTUS blog points out, there are too many right-wing activists that have devoted too much money to let her slide.  Already, her comment that the high court is “where policy is made” is raising the ire of the right.

It’s also proving to be a diving issue for primaries as well; in Florida, Rubio is more likely going to oppose her while Crist’s support for her may cost him further with the base.  There will likely be more GOPers (and moderate Dems) who will feel pressure from the base to either support or oppose.  There’s also the issue of the nomination’s timing.  This is a critical session for the Democrats – healthcare and energy reform are both on an the front burner, along with backlogged executive appointments, a 2010 appropriations bill, and transportation – and the spectacle of a Supreme Court nomination battle could put a huge damper on the Democratic party’s agenda, giving incumbents less to go home and brag about for 2010.

Thoughts?  Will Sotomayor impact the 2010 elections in any way, or will she just be a blip on the screen by then?  As an aside, what do you think this will portend for the MN Senate recount (my money is on Coleman appealing to SCOTUS for sure now to keep Franken from voting her in).

CNN is reporting that David Souter is retiring from the SCOTUS!  I just hope Specter commited to voting for cloture on all appointees!  

I just wished Souter had waited until Fraken was seated, since will give the Republicans a reason to draw out his case even longer!

Swing State Project doesn’t usually work the Supreme Court beat, but today the Supremes issued probably this year’s most significant opinion concerning SSP’s meat and potatoes: redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, and, ultimately, the composition of the House. The news isn’t good: in a party-line 5-4 decision (plurality authored by Justice Kennedy), the court held that the VRA does not require the creation of new districts that are intended to elect a minority representative (‘crossover’ or ‘coalition’ districts) but where that minority does not actually constitute 50% of the district’s population.

Now, there’s one key detail that makes this not as dire as it first sounds. Kennedy made it clear that state legislatures may still create a district that has less than 50% of a particular minority even if the intent of the district is to elect a minority representative (via a coalition of various minorities, or minorities plus liberal whites). It is simply not required as a remedy under the VRA in response to previous instances of vote dilution. However, the federal government cannot compel the creation of such a district. (Unless, as DavidNYC pointed out, Congress steps into the fray and rewrites VRA section 2. That may be too much of a political football to take on right now, though.)

Bartlett v. Strickland stems from a 2007 North Carolina Supreme Court decision, where the NC court struck down a district that was 39% African-American, created with the intention of electing an African-American, on the grounds that the district violated state law by unnecessarily crossing county lines. Civil rights groups appealed, saying that such coalition districts help to reduce racial polarization by requiring minority candidates to receive at least some backing from white voters.

This just serves to underscore the importance of control of state legislatures (and gubernatorial seats) coming out of the 2010 elections. We could see very different re-districting results coming out of, say, North Carolina, where we will probably control the trifecta (and are thus likely to see, say, NC-08 and NC-13 made safer by additions from safely minority-majority NC-12), as opposed to the GOP majority in Georgia, where we could see unfavorable tinkering with the south Georgia seats (for instance, a worse hand dealt to Jim Marshall in GA-08 as black percentages in GA-02 and GA-12 are boosted back over the 50% mark).

UPDATE (David): It turns out that Justice Ginsburg agrees with me. From her dissent (PDF, p. 47):

Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court. The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of §2.