Watching GOP Senators talk today about federalizing state elections is completely head spinning - because, of course, the federal government has *long* set election rules and standards. #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 1/
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an obvious example. But more recently, UOCAVA (1986), National Voter Registration Act (1993), the Help America Vote Act (2002) - the first and last of which were signed into law by Republican presidents. #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 2/
In some cases, these federal laws forced states to change longstanding practices. The Help America Vote Act, for example, required states to have a chief election officer - something many states did not have at the time. #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 3/
And this doesn’t even get to earlier federal interventions - the mandate to use single-member districts for congressional elections (1842), creation of a single national election day (1845), etc. #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 4/
And let’s go back further - to the history of the Elections Clause, which, as Madison explained, was needed in case state legislatures abused their power to “mould their [election] regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed.” (Hmmm) #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 5/
And federal power over elections, as explained by Justice Scalia, is broad. In 2013, he wrote that Congress’ power under the Elections Clause was “comprehensive” and included the power to adopt “a complete code for congressional elections” if it wanted. #S1#HR1#ForThePeople 6/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Tuesday is expected to bring the first big floor vote in the Senate on the For the People Act (S.1 but as amended & refiled S.2093).
It’s a big vote, but it will fail because a motion to proceed requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. But that’s expected. 1/
But the thing to watch for as a temperature check will be whether Joe Manchin votes yes on the motion to proceed (he’s put out his ideas for a streamlined bill) or what statements he makes regarding the bill. 2/
And it’s worth noting that the bill being voted on tomorrow is not expected to contain any of the changes that Manchin has proposed. As filed, it’s the manager’s amendment from the Rules Committee. 3/
The first SCOTUS opinion of the morning is by Justice Barrett in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System from the March sitting, re how defendants in securities class action cases rebut the presumption of classwide reliance. Opinion here: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… 1/
Goldman Sachs case remanded to Second Circuit but alignment of judges a bit messy. 2/
There will be more opinions this morning - which could come from any of the justices since opinions are delivered in reverse order of seniority. 3/
First SCOTUS opinion of the morning is in the ACA case (!). Justice Breyer holds Texas lacks standing to bring challenge to ACA. Justice Thomas files a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissent. Opinion here: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… 1/
There will be more opinions. 2/
Second opinion of the day is in Nestlé USA v. Doe I, about extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Thomas has the opinion but the alignment is a bit messy. Ninth Circuit reversed. Opinion here: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… 2/
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) is essential. But it is not, as Manchin asserts, sufficient. H.R. 4, for instance, will do nothing to stop the extreme partisan gerrymandering that will target communities of color this cycle. wvgazettemail.com/opinion/op_ed_…
And VRA doesn’t even prevent all forms of race-based discrimination. To wit, DOJ precleared racially gerrymandered maps in Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama last decade. Those maps were later struck down and ordered redrawn - but it took the better part of a decade.
And that’s exactly the point. The VRA, when it comes to redistricting, was designed for a different, more starkly segregated world - not the diverse, multiracial world we live in today. 3/
June is #ImmigrantHeritageMonth - a look👇at how the foreign-born population of the US ebbed after the Immigration Act of 1924 and went back up after the Immigration Nationality Act of 1965.
We often talk (correctly) about the story of America as a story of race, but the last now coming on six decades also have been one about the story of immigration - which sometimes overlaps with the story of race narrative but other times exists along side it. 2/
And really both stories need to be told - and grappled with - because both impact who we are as a country today, culturally, politically, even racially and ethnically - you name it. 3/