/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70526310/1233355675.0.jpg)
A blow-up figure lies on the ground as the Declaration for American Democracy coalition hosts a rally calling on the Senate to pass the For the People Act, outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday, June 9, 2021. Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
A Trump-appointed judge handed down a decision on Thursday that, if embraced by the Supreme Court, would render crucial safeguards against racial discrimination in elections virtually unenforceable — particularly during Republican administrations.
To be clear, this is a decision by a federal trial judge, which means that it must survive contact with an appeals court and the Supreme Court before its narrow approach to voting rights becomes the law of the land. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority is typically hostile to voting rights suits, so there is a very real risk that they will agree with this trial judge.
The case is Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, and the plaintiffs claim that Arkansas’s statehouse maps are racially gerrymandered in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark civil rights law that probably did more than any other statute to end Jim Crow. Among other things, the plaintiffs note that the maps contain only 11 (out of 100) majority-Black districts, even though Black voters make up more than 16 percent of the state’s population.
But Lee Rudofsky, the Trump judge assigned this case, barely engages with the substance of this racial gerrymandering claim. Instead, Rudofsky concludes that such a claim “may be brought only by the Attorney General of the United States” and not by private plaintiffs.
Private suits enforcing the VRA have been a fixture of American civil rights law since the 1960s. As the Supreme Court explained in Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969), “the achievement of the Act’s laudable goal could be severely hampered … if each citizen were required to depend solely on litigation instituted at the discretion of the Attorney General.” Among other things, “the Attorney General has a limited staff and often might be unable to uncover quickly” new state policies that target voters of color.
And a law that only the attorney general can enforce will be utterly useless if the attorney general does not choose to enforce it. During the entire Trump administration, for example, the Justice Department’s voting section brought only one lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Voting Rights Act — and that was a fairly minor suit alleging that the method of electing school board members in a South Dakota school district “dilutes the voting strength of American Indian citizens.”
Nevertheless, Rudofsky now seeks to neutralize one of the most important protections against racism in American elections.
The most straightforward reason why Rudofsky is wrong is that the Supreme Court determined that he is wrong in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996). In that case, a majority of the Court concluded that Section 2 of the VRA, the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, is enforceable through private lawsuits.
Additionally, while the Voting Rights Act does not contain any language which explicitly states that “private plaintiffs may sue under this law,” it does contain some provisions which make no sense unless private suits are permitted. One provision, for example, states that federal courts hearing VRA lawsuits shall exercise their jurisdiction “without regard to whether a person asserting rights” under the VRA has exhausted other potential legal remedies.
It makes no sense for the VRA to contain a provision referring to “a person asserting rights” in a Voting Rights Act lawsuit unless the law permits such a person to assert those rights in the first place.
Rudofsky’s primary argument is that Allen and Morse do not apply because the Supreme Court has since abandoned their approach to interpreting federal laws, and that the VRA must be retroactively reinterpreted in line with this new approach.
The Voting Rights Act became law in 1965. One year earlier, in J.I. Case v. Borak (1964), the Supreme Court established that federal statutes should generally be read broadly to permit enforcement by private lawsuits. “It is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose,” Borak explained.
Thus, the Congress that wrote the Voting Rights Act operated under the assumption that it did not need to explicitly write a private right to sue into the statute because the Supreme Court had recently signaled that private suits are permitted when a federal law would be ineffective without them. The Court validated this reading of the VRA four years later in Allen.
Then, nearly four decades after Congress wrote the VRA — and 19 years after Congress enacted important amendments to the law in 1982 — the Court decided Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), which laid out a much stingier approach to private lawsuits. Sandoval does contain some language that undermines the case for permitting private suits under the Voting Rights Act.
Sandoval, for example, states that “statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create ‘no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons’” — so if a federal law uses language like “no state shall do X” instead of “all persons have a right to X,” courts typically should not permit private lawsuits under that statute.
The relevant provision of the Voting Rights Act uses both kinds of language — it starts with the phrase “no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State,” but then goes on to forbid any voting practice “which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote.”
But there are good reasons not to read Sandoval too restrictively with respect to the VRA. One is that, while Sandoval does lay out some interpretive guidelines that courts can use to determine whether a particular law permits private lawsuits, Sandoval also states that “the judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy,” and that “statutory intent on this latter point is determinative.”
And, in this case, there is overwhelming evidence that Congress intended the Voting Rights Act to contain a private right that is enforced by private lawsuits. Again, Congress wrote the law against the backdrop of decisions like Borak, which emphasized that private parties should generally be allowed to sue to enforce their legal rights. Federal courts have understood the law to permit private suits at least as far back as 1969, when the Court decided Allen. And Congress has amended the VRA multiple times, but it’s never questioned the longstanding assumption that the law permits private lawsuits.
Justice John Paul Stevens, moreover, anticipated Rudofsky’s objection to an enforceable Voting Rights Act in an opinion he wrote in the Morse case. Recognizing that the law governing when private parties are allowed to sue under federal statutes was in flux in 1996, when Morse was decided, Stevens acknowledged that a decision proving that only the attorney general may enforce the law “might have been correct if the Voting Rights Act had been enacted recently.” But such a decision would fail “to give effect to our cases holding that our evaluation of congressional action ‘must take into account its contemporary legal context.’”
Stevens, in other words, relied on a fairly basic rule of fundamental fairness. Courts should not interpret a statute written in 1965 using interpretive rules that the Court came up with years later. If Congress had known about Sandoval when it wrote the Voting Rights Act, it would have known to use more explicit language. But Congress did not have a time machine.
In any event, Rudofsky is not alone in his desire to burn down a landmark civil rights statute because lawmakers in 1965 failed to predict the future. Concurring in Brnovich v. DNC (2021), Justice Neil Gorsuch claimed that “our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2,” and suggested that he would eliminate this right of private parties to sue under the law.
Gorsuch’s opinion was joined by only one other justice, Justice Clarence Thomas. So it is not the law. But given this Supreme Court’s record of hostility toward the Voting Rights Act, there is no guarantee that Gorsuch won’t find five votes to affirm Rudofsky’s decision.
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — The repercussions of the march on the capitol are something local activists point out are still affecting today. That’s why they’re demanding accountability.
That echoing cry that rang outside of Kevin Mccarthy’s office in Bakersfield during the one-year mark of the January 6 insurrection, where supporters of former president Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol in an effort to stop a peaceful transition of power.
“We want to make sure that this never happens again. Which means that the people that planned it the people that participated, that made the January 6th insurrection happen, they need to be held accountable. And especially, we are calling on Kevin Mccarthy who happens to be my congressman, to do something,” said Dolores Huerta, activist
That call for accountability came from life-long activist, Dolores Huerta and her foundation –she alongside other local activists and even organizations across the nation–wanting to ensure democracy quote “stays alive” and power to vote is unharmed.
“When we stand by a lie and say Joe Biden was not elected the president, when we incite people to commit violence, around that lie, and then people get hurt, and it hurts our democracy–we are the symbol of democracy throughout the world–we have to make sure it’s protected,” said Huerta.
Meanwhile, McCarthy’s office provided us with a statement regarding the insurrection. He wrote:
“As we have said from the start, the actions of that day were lawless and as wrong as wrong can be. Our Capitol should never be compromised and those who broke the law deserve to face legal repercussions and full accountability. Unfortunately, one year later, the majority party seems no closer to answering the central question of how the Capitol was left so unprepared and what must be done.”
While some had picket signs this truck from Hazmat American had the message in bright lights–they this sedition petition just days after the January 6 insurrection.
“Kevin McCarthy needs to stop gaslighting the American people. Kevin McCarthy needs to stop pretending like he opposes the violence. Because Kevin McCarthy, days after the election in 2020, went on Fox News and repeated Trump’s big lies,” said Chris Tallent Hazmat America National Campaign Director.
Their petition, according to Tallent, is calling on the department of justice to prosecute Trump for sedition–it’s already garnered tens of thousands of signatures, and will continue in 2022, ahead of the midterm elections.
“Because of Kevin McCarthy’s lies, republicans across the country are trying to suppress the vote, they’re trying to take people’s voices away, and we’re here today to say, that’s wrong, we deserve better,” said Tallent.
The Bakersfield Californian -1/6/22
On Jan. 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of then-President Donald Trump swarmed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote. Many were injured and five people died, including a police officer who suffered a stroke the day after the incident.
A year later, a group of about two dozen activists held a protest and vigil in front of the Bakersfield office of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield. Organized by the Dolores Huerta Foundation, the protest was meant to demand accountability for what they see as McCarthy’s role in the Jan. 6 attack.
“Kevin McCarthy has been supporting Donald Trump — Donald Trump, who led the insurrection against our United States of America,” Dolores Huerta said during the protest. “This is a threat to our democracy.”
The former president’s role in the Jan. 6 riot has been hotly debated since the event itself. Following the election, he stirred distrust in the electoral process by claiming voter fraud, which has been widely debunked by numerous investigations conducted by multiple states. On the day of the unrest, he held a rally in Washington, D.C., in which he called on Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election result.
The House of Representatives has formed an investigative committee to look into the causes of the Capitol attack. Initially, the committee was meant to be a bipartisan affair, but McCarthy pulled Republican involvement after Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to seat two of McCarthy’s choices, Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jim Banks, R-Indiana.
Two Republicans who voted to impeach Trump now sit on the committee along with seven Democrats.
McCarthy now says the Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has become a tool to further divide the nation.
When asked by The Californian for a comment on the protest in front of his office, a representative for McCarthy emailed the newspaper an excerpt from an open letter from McCarthy to fellow House Republicans on Jan. 2.
“As we have said from the start, the actions of that day were lawless and as wrong as wrong can be. Our Capitol should never be compromised and those who broke the law deserve to face legal repercussions and full accountability,” the letter stated. “Unfortunately, one year later, the majority party seems no closer to answering the central question of how the Capitol was left so unprepared and what must be done to ensure it never happens again. Instead, they are using it as a partisan political weapon to further divide our country.”
But protesters in front of his office demanded McCarthy comply with the committee.
“Kevin McCarthy is gaslighting the American people. Kevin McCarthy is gaslighting his constituents and his voters,” said Chris Tallent, the national campaign director for Sedition Petition, an online petition aimed at bringing charges of sedition against Trump. “And we say no more lies. We are here to call out Kevin McCarthy and hold him accountable.”
The Sedition Petition brought an inflatable superhero in a hazmat suit named “Clean Up Carl” to the rally to illustrate their point.
Following a press conference, attendees held a vigil to commemorate those who died during the attack.
CENTRE COUNTY, Pa. (WTAJ) – A group of activists is demanding that Pennsylvania law makers stop accepting bribes and join the 42 other states who have made it illegal.
March on Harrisburg rallied outside of Senator Jake Corman’s office at 1 p.m. on June 10 in Bellefonte, to demand that he pass the gift ban.
According to the groups executive director Rabbi Michael Pollack, the ban would put an end to law makers’ endless wining and dining, paid vacations and even cash.
“Because they take these bribes they don’t care about what’s happening to regular Pennsylvanians. Last January, Senator Corman went to the Bahamas. He got a nice free junket out there where they put him up in a nice hotel and gave him an open bar and all that fun stuff and obviously of course the people who gave him that free trip want something in return, so it’s bribery,” said Pollack.
The organization says they’ve been pushing for the Gift Ban to be passed for 5 years now, and will continue to, until it is.
I started a political action committee, and principally what we do is anti-GOP and anti-Trump billboards. And we also do the rat. We’ve had this rat for over a year, and deployed it in several states. It’s been at the White House and Trump Hotel—we took it to Mar-a-Lago. Sometimes it’s a rat truck, sometimes it’s a rat boat, but it’s always Trump rat. It’s ironic because we created it almost a year before [Trump’s statements about Baltimore.] But, that’s Trump. The rat is the perfect message.
Astin: We’re here basically to let Trump know that we don’t agree with his policies, and we don’t agree with what he has said about our city. You look at this crowd, and there’s a mixture of every color and race and age. We have to be out here to show the fact that we’re united. As a city and as people.
Carlisle: We have to show them that it’s not okay. Not in our name. He doesn’t listen, so I don’t think he cares [about the protests.] I’m doing this for me and my grandchildren. I have to stand for what I believe even if it’s not going to make any difference today. And I will be registering voters and going to other states to do so.
I’m here to see the President of the United States come to Baltimore City. I’ve been here my whole life, and now my president’s finally coming. He opened up opportunity zones which is why he’s here today, so he can actually rebuild the worst parts of our city and make them nice again. His four tweets [about Baltimore] have cleaned our city up tremendously.
This is Cleanup Carl. He’s a superhero for democracy who is on a national tour to call out all of the country’s biggest corruptors, and there’s no bigger corruptors than Trump and GOP members of Congress. I think it’s so offensive that Trump thinks that he can tell people about Baltimore when he doesn’t know anything about this city. Baltimore has its fair share of problems, just like any city does. Baltimore is a beautiful, diverse city with so many wonderful neighborhoods and so many beautiful people and Trump doesn’t know anything about that. There’s no place for racism from Trump and the GOP in Baltimore City or anywhere else.
Many of our members recognize Baltimore City as their home. Many of them have been living here, on average, for about 15 years and they are tired of the inhumane treatment from this administration and the continued bullying. So we’re out here today with a big sign that says, “Abolish ICE” to remind the administration that this is the time to ensure that our voices are heard. I think it’s important that the president continues to see that immigrant community members are united with so many hundreds of allies behind us. We’re letting him know that this is our city, and his continued threats and attacks of panic will not defeat us here in Baltimore.
I’ve been doing almost weekly protests against the Trump administration since he became president. One of my bucket list items was to come and protest when Donald Trump is in the area. I did the Women’s March, too, in Washington, D.C., which was fabulous. It was one of the top experiences of my life. I know he was in the White House then, but today is a little more personal. I want to show my solidarity and show that Baltimore is strong and we’ll always stand up to Trump’s policies, no matter what he says about us.
Grace, left. Isabel, right. Grace: I think there’s a lot of frustration and anger with the way that things in the country are going, and it’s cathartic to go out and be with people who are also angry and frustrated and shout about it. This [poster] has made its way around a few different rallies in Baltimore. I think that in our country a lot of people like to disguise their racism as patriotism, and then when you call it out, they try to pretend that you’re ridiculous and gaslight you into thinking that it’s about loving our country and not about hating other people.
Isabel: The real question is, what parts of this country do they love and what type of America do they consider great?
The visit by the president — who maligned Baltimore as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live” — was limited to a dinnertime speech kicking off the GOP retreat at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel in Harbor East.
Ulysses Mu?oz@y00lzAn inflatable President Trump rat sits in the parking lot at the corner of Eastern Ave. and President St., in view of the Marriott hotel where President Trump is due to speak later this evening.
In a small park a few blocks away, more than 100 protesters strongly embraced the rat motif. Signs likened the president and the GOP to rodents, and people donned masks, petted stuffed vermin, or wore them on their heads.
“Trump is the real rat!” the crowd chanted.
Evening commuters leaned on their horns in support.
One woman held a sign saying she loved her congressman, referring to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), whose efforts to investigate the Trump White House as chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee first drew the president’s ire.
House Republicans selected Baltimore as the location for their three-day conference long before the president’s attack on the city, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1. Well before the White House announced that Trump would attend the conference, a coalition of advocacy groups calling themselves the Baltimore Welcoming Committee had planned days of rallies to protest GOP policies on immigration, climate change and other topics. There was to be a singalong, a light show and a dance party. Organizer Sharon Black said Trump’s scheduled appearance “upped the ante.”
“This is about the remarks about Baltimore and his policies. You can’t really separate the two,” she said.
When the motorcade passed by at 6:40 p.m., onlookers on both sides of the street raised their middle fingers.
“Trump is the real rat,” they chanted.
There were counterprotesters, too. About half a dozen “Bikers for Trump” came to the waterfront area, saying they wanted to show support for the president.
“I grew up in Baltimore,” said retired construction worker Steven Imchula, 70, of Bel Air, Md. “Everything Trump said about Baltimore is true.”
Erin Cox
✔@ErinatThePost
Found a half-dozen Bikers for Trump folks here to support the president. Says one: “I’m not here to start trouble. But if I see some moron burning a flag, his a— is mine.”
Joe Murphy, a 50-year-old insurance salesman, arrived alone and unfurled a large Trump 2020 banner, prompting an onslaught of taunts from protesters. Brenton Williamson, 29, ran over to help hold the banner as police escorted them across President Street, somewhat away from the crowd.
“Look at those people,” Murphy, of Baltimore, said moments later, standing next to a 15-foot-tall rat king effigy of Trump. “They’re dressed like rats and Homer Simpson. I can’t believe they’re even allowed to vote.”
It was the first of several times officers had to intervene as Murphy tangled with critics of the president. At one point, an officer physically separated Murphy from Duane G. “Shorty” Davis, who had a rat puppet on his left hand and a papier-mâché Trump head on his right.
Police also tried to remove four women whose signs said, “No GOP racists on our streets,” from a park bench on the sidewalk. “Why do we have to go?” one said to an officer.
Asked Wednesday about Trump’s visit, Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young (D) said, “We’re a welcoming city, and he’s welcome to be here.”
Young said that if Trump traveled beyond the Inner Harbor, he would notice “that every neighborhood is not crime-ridden and dirty.” City Council President Brandon Scott (D) said he hoped the visit would allow Trump to see some of the infrastructure challenges the city faces.
“We know he’s been touting bringing infrastructure to Americans who live across the country . . . those jobs that could be created through that would change the very neighborhoods that he was disparaging,” Scott said.
Bruce Knauff of Towson, Md., said he came to the protest because “of a general dislike of Trump, the lies, the hate, the everything.” He said rather than criticizing Baltimore, the president should do something to help the city.
Chris Tallent, 38, of Baltimore, chanted, “No racists on our streets” and said he is on a mission “to get rid of the GOP.”
Nearby, a bare-chested 28-year-old defense industry worker named Steve slid a Vladimir Putin mask off his face and, for a minute, dropped his faux Russian accent.
“Sometimes, it’s not about changing minds,” he said, declining to give his last name. “Sometimes, these protests are about trying to have fun with people who agree with you.”
This article includes material from the Associated Press.
