In light of the upcoming 2020 Presidential Elections, many claim that the judicial branch-- more specifically, the Supreme Court-- will be the decider, more so than ever before, of who declares victory on Nov. 3rd: Trump or Biden.
In The Economist’s article, “The Supreme Court May Tip the 2020 Elections,” they predict that the Supreme Court, given its conservative tilt, will influence the 2020 elections by limiting voting capabilities on a national scale, an action that is largely believed to benefit the Republican Party. They have compelling evidence that shows how the Supreme Court has already started to do this; One such instance is when it limited voting opportunities for around 1 million Floridian ex-convicts by requiring that they must pay all fines before voting, which individuals like Justice Sonia Sotomayor called “condon[ment of] disenfranchisement,” as it prohibited as many as 1 million ex-convicts, who could otherwise vote according to Florida’s Constitution, from voting.
Individuals such as Barabak from The LA Times believe that a potential Supreme Court seat vacancy ahead of the election will influence its outcomes. A similar situation in the 2016 election provides support for this claim: due to a Supreme Court vacancy, Trump promised to put a “redoubtable conservative” as justice. According to Pew Exit Polls, 20% of Trump voters thought of this action as the “most important factor in their decision” to vote for Trump. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg now in chemotherapy, many believe in the possibility that she may leave her position in the Supreme Court ahead of the election, thus predicting a similar phenomenon to occur in the 2020 election.
Meanwhile, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times claims that the Supreme Court will likely evaluate the legitimacy of the election, essentially deciding its outcome. Because of already arising issues, such as Trump’s claim that an increase in mail-in voting will cause voter fraud, Greenhouse predicts legal disputes between the presidential candidates will surface the day of the election, and the Supreme Court will have to make a last-minute call on the legitimacy of the election, just as they did in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
In regards to our class discussions of the Consitution, I think that the judicial branch has significantly deviated from its initial purpose. The American Government is deviating from its system of the separation of power. Rather than checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches, the judicial branch seems to be aligning and consolidating its power with the executive branch by becoming extremely partisan. In this case, by limiting voting abilities nationally, the Supreme Court is promoting the Republican and President’s agenda rather than taking an unbiased approach to the issue at hand.
Questions
1. Given the following claims, in which way do you predict the Supreme Court will influence the 2020 elections, if at all?
2. Given the Supreme Court's actions taken on voting accessibility, do you think that the Supreme Court has become too partisan? Why or why not?
5 comments:
While I agree that there is a lot to be concerned about regarding the Supreme Court's involvement in voter suppression as we go into the 2020 election, I also wonder how the Supreme Court may play a role after the election has taken place. With President Trump's accusations against mail-in voting, I worry that if he loses the election against Vice President Biden he will refuse to accept the election results because of his belief that mail-in ballots are corrupt and not to be trusted. President Trump already labeled the 2016 election as rigged and he won that election, so I can only imagine that a loss would come with a declaration of invalidity.
As quoted in a Politico article, legal scholar and professor Lawerence Douglas explains that “Our Constitution does not secure the peaceful transition of power, but rather presupposes it,” meaning that Trump, if he loses, could set a political precedent of not insuring a peaceful transfer of power. Then, we would likely have to turn to the Supreme Court to determine what the next step is for the nation. How would a refusal to transfer power undermine the democracy in our nation?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-could-happen-if-donald-trump-rejects-electoral-defeat
^^ I'm not sure why my comment didn't save my name because I'm logged in, but Claire Phillips commented that ^^ Sorry!
If the Supreme Court continues to limit voting capabilities (which indirectly targets democratic populations), I believe this will have a huge impact on the election. When it comes down to it, it takes just one vote to make or break election results. Therefore, by limiting ANY voters who would likely vote for Biden, the Supreme Court gives an enormous advantage to Trump. Like Harbani said, the judicial branch, just like any branch of government, is supposed to be non-partisan, and "check" other branches, not "align" with them. So, if the Supreme Court continues to take actions supporting one party's efforts over the other's (in this case, the Republican party over democratic party), I definitely believe it will have become too partisan.
I also agree that the supreme court needs to be more careful with becoming too partisan, or in this case, too republican. They should approach the mail-in voting issue with a balanced perspective, especially since it will affect many states and people this year. While Trump pushing against mail-in voting mostly negatively affect democratic populations, I think that Trump has a valid argument for his fear of mail-in voting. According to bbc, there have been multiple cases of mail-in voting fraud, but so far no widespread fraud. But since many more states are doing in mail-in voting, there is greater possibility for widespread fraud and therefore a corrupt election. However, I don't agree that raising postal prices is fair and I don't think that it is the right solution to make sure that there isn't widespread fraud. I think trump should focus on measure that make sure that each mail-in vote belongs to one citizen, and not just raise prices on postal services
Post a Comment