Driving the Day
Must Read Stories
Supreme Court Justices unite against oversight amid ethics concerns and calls for transparency
- Washington Post: Supreme Court ethics rules are focus of Senate hearing on Tuesday: A pair of prominent constitutional experts — one conservative, one liberal — are telling Congress that lawmakers have the power to impose a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, but cannot order the high court to come up with rules on its own. The statements from former federal judge Michael Luttig and legal scholar Laurence Tribe come as the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing Tuesday morning to consider strengthening ethics rules for the Supreme Court in response to a cascade of revelations about unreported lavish travel and real estate deals. None of the nine justices will be in attendance. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. last week turned down an invitation to testify from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the committee chairman, instead providing a nonbinding “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” signed by all nine justices. Roberts suggested his presence at the hearing would threaten the constitutional separation of powers and noted that chief justices have attended such hearings only rarely, and only to address “mundane” topics.
- New York Times: How Scalia Law School Became a Key Friend of the Court: The law school has developed an unusually expansive relationship with the justices of the high court — welcoming them as teachers but also as lecturers and special guests at school events. Scalia Law, in turn, has marketed that closeness with the justices as a unique draw to prospective students and donors. The Supreme Court assiduously seeks to keep its inner workings, and the justices’ lives, shielded from view, even as recent revelations and ethical questions have brought calls for greater transparency. Yet what emerges from the trove of documents is a glimpse behind the Supreme Court curtain, revealing one particular version of the favored treatment the justices often receive from those seeking to get closer to them.
- ABC: All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: ‘Raises more questions,’ Senate chair says: There’s no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code. All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.
- CNN: Dismantling the Supreme Court’s ‘misdirection’ about its own ethics: A series of findings about Supreme Court justices failing to fully disclose gifts and real estate deals led to a rare moment of unity. Conservative and liberal justices joined together to say in a statement that they’re quite happy with the current system by which they voluntarily follow ethics guidelines. No changes needed. Independence and security, they argue, make the Supreme Court a special case. Far from satisfying anyone growing concerned about ethics at the court, the statement made it seem as though the justices feel the rules are optional for them.
State-level supermajorities fuel partisan dominance and threaten minority rights
- Washington Post: The rise of the state-level supermajority: Two legislators removed — however temporarily — from their positions in Tennessee. A legislator in Montana ordered to remain outside the chamber. In Missouri, a proposal that would make it easier for Republicans to amend the state constitution and harder for Democrats to do so. In states across the country, an embrace of legislation reflecting partisan dominance instead of compromise. There’s an obvious reason for this pattern. Over the past 15 years, the number of state legislative bodies dominated by one party or the other has increased dramatically. And with that increase, there’s less need to reach across the aisle.
- New York Times: A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook: Recently, there has been extensive use of legislative expulsion to punish Democratic lawmakers who dissent from or challenge Republican majorities. We saw this in Tennessee, obviously, where Republicans expelled two Democratic members — Representatives Justin Jones of Nashville and Justin J. Pearson of Memphis — for loudly supporting a youth protest for gun control from the statehouse floor using a bullhorn. We saw another example this week, in Montana, after State Representative Zooey Zephyr, a transgender woman, spoke out against a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. Calling her comments (“If you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”) “disrespectful and “inappropriate,” Montana Republicans have barred Zephyr from attending — or speaking during — the House session for the rest of the legislative term, which ends next week.
- Washington Post: Black voting rights under threat in GOP supermajority states, lawmakers say: The expulsions of Democratic state Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson from the Tennessee House by Republican leaders this month hit a nerve with Black politicians and activists across the South. Conservative White Republicans dominate state-level politics throughout the region, and they are often accused of wielding their power to suppress the will of Black voters, who overwhelmingly back Democrats. Republican lawmakers have supermajorities — which allow them to override governors’ vetoes and pass virtually any piece of legislation without a single Democratic vote — in at least one chamber of the state legislatures in all former confederate states except Georgia, Texas and Virginia. In North Carolina and Louisiana, a Democrat in each legislature recently flipped to the GOP, giving Republicans a supermajority to overturn potential vetoes by their Democratic governors.
In The States
NORTH CAROLINA: State Supreme Court reverses redistricting ruling in a win for Republicans
- Wall Street Journal: North Carolina’s Highest Court Reverses Course on Voting Decisions: The North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new Republican majority elected last year, on Friday threw out some of its own recent decisions that endorsed a broad view of voting rights, reinstating a voter-identification law and rejecting a challenge to electoral maps drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature. The court, in a third decision, also rolled back voting rights for some people with felony convictions. In one 5-2 decision, the court along partisan lines reversed prior rulings it had made striking down maps for the state’s congressional and legislative districts, which the justices previously had said were unlawfully gerrymandered to boost Republicans’ partisan advantage. Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing for the majority, said the state’s constitution doesn’t confer on the judiciary a role in deciding questions about whether electoral maps are improperly constructed to give one party an advantage.
- Bloomberg: Supreme Court Election Case in Doubt With State Court Ruling: The North Carolina Supreme Court backed a Republican-drawn congressional map in a ruling that could scuttle a major U.S. Supreme Court elections case. The state court on Friday overruled its own 2022 decision that said the districts were so partisan they violated the North Carolina Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has been reviewing that ruling in a case centering on which parts of state governments have authority to shape federal election rules. The litigation took an unusual twist when Republicans gained control of the North Carolina Supreme Court in last year’s election. The state court said it would then reconsider at least part of the dispute, raising questions about the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The top U.S. court in March asked the litigants to file briefs discussing the potential impact of the North Carolina court’s decision to revisit the dispute. That request drew mixed responses, with the Biden administration suggesting the high court drop the case but other litigants saying the justices should rule.
FLORIDA: Legislature passes restrictive elections bill that ensures DeSantis can remain governor during his 2024 presidential run, among other changes
- PBS: Florida bill allows DeSantis to run for president while governor: Republican Ron DeSantis would not have to resign as Florida governor in order to run for president if he chooses under a bill given final approval Friday in by the GOP-dominated state Legislature. The measure, attached to a much broader elections bill, would carve out an exemption to Florida law requiring anyone seeking office to resign from one they already hold after qualifying as a candidate. Only an officeholder running for U.S. president or vice president would not have to resign. Supporters portrayed the bill as purely a clarification and not intended specifically for DeSantis, who has not yet announced a presidential bid but is widely expected to declare his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the coming weeks. The bill passed the state House 76-34 along party lines and now goes to DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.
- Associated Press: Panel: Florida election law didn’t target Black voters: A federal appeals court upheld a Florida election law Thursday that a lower court had ruled was aimed at suppressing Black voters. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge Mark Walker’s March 2022 ruling was flawed. The three-judge panel said in a 2-1 split decision that evidence did not show that lawmakers deliberately targeted Black voters. The law tightens rules on mailed ballots, drop boxes and other popular election methods — changes that made it more difficult for Black voters who, overall, have more socioeconomic disadvantages than white voters, Walker wrote in his ruling. Florida’s Republican-led Legislature has joined several others around the country in passing election reforms after Republican former President Donald Trump made unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Democrats have called such reforms a partisan attempt to keep some voters from the ballot box.
TEXAS: State House passes bill that would make illegal voting a felony, aligning with a similar bill already passed by the Senate
- Texas Tribune: Illegal voting in Texas likely to be a felony again after state House vote: Texas lawmakers inched closer to reinstating felony-level punishment for residents who vote illegally, but a key provision separates the two legislative chambers. The House on Thursday gave preliminary approval to House Bill 1243, sponsored by state Rep. Cole Hefner, R-Mt. Pleasant, with a 83-63 vote. The bill reverses a change state lawmakers made in 2021 when they downgraded illegal voting to a misdemeanor as part of a sweeping overhaul to the state’s election laws. “We must ensure that Texans are confident that the legitimate votes they cast will be counted and are not canceled out by someone who has knowingly or intentionally cast an illegal ballot,” Hefner said.
What Experts Are Saying
NEW: January 6 Clearinghouse: 33 Expert Statements Submitted to House Select Committee: Just Security “recovered 33 expert statements submitted to the January 6th select committee on the topics of democracy and political violence. It includes contributions by a highly impressive list of interdisciplinary scholars and nonpartisan organizations. Thanks to Jacob Glick for writing an introduction to the repository. Jacob is Policy Counsel with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center. He served as Investigative Counsel on the House Select Committee, where he was a lead counsel on the committee’s investigations into domestic extremism and social media’s role in the attempted insurrection.” Just Security: January 6 Clearinghouse (Containing all 33 experts statements) | Jacob Glick Introduction | Tweet | FB | LinkedIn
Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky professor of philosophy at Yale University: “It is not difficult at all to classify Tucker Carlson’s political ideology. He is an American fascist, only the latest in a long historical line.” The Guardian Op-Ed: Tucker Carlson is not an anti-war populist rebel. He is a fascist
Norman Eisen, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute and Josh Stanton, of counsel at Perry Guha LLP: “If Florida is the bastion of freedom that Ron DeSantis claims it is, then the First Amendment should be sacrosanct. In DeSantis’ hands, it no longer is. That isn’t part of a “blueprint for America’s revival,” as he claims. On the contrary, it is as un-American as you can get. Fortunately, Disney seems to have sufficient legal grounds to defeat DeSantis in his latest assault on the Constitution.” MSNBC Op-Ed: DeSantis’ war on Disney is as un-American as it gets
Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University: “It’s also odd that DeSantis has chosen to go after a company that is one of the most iconic cultural products of modern American history. Disney is in many ways a symbol of the very wholesome family values that Republicans try to align themselves with.” CNN Op-Ed: Why DeSantis’ war on Disney is a big mistake
Headlines
The MAGA Movement And The Ongoing Threat To Elections
Washington Post: This is what it took for Arizona Republicans to expel an election denier
Guardian: Pro-Trump pastors rebuked for ‘overt embrace of white Christian nationalism’
Politico: How the Trump Years Weakened the Media
Atlantic: MAGA Is Ripping Itself Apart
Trump Investigations
New York Times: Prosecutors in Jan. 6 Case Step up Inquiry Into Trump Fund-Raising
Reuters: Donald Trump requests mistrial in rape accuser Carroll’s civil case
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Fulton judge extends deadline for DA to reply to Trump motion to kill probe
January 6 And The 2020 Election
Washington Post: In N.H. stop, Trump embraces woman convicted in Jan. 6 case
BBC: Mike Pence testifies in criminal probe of Trump and Capitol riot
Chattanooga Times Free Press: Cleveland man charged in Jan. 6 Capitol breach faces trial Monday in Washington
Politico: ‘QAnon shaman’ says former lawyer failed him over Jan. 6 videos
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Hayward man charged with taking part in Jan. 6 insurrection
Des Moines Register: Iowan Deborah Sandoval sentenced to prison for January 6 US Capitol attack
Opinion
Washington Post: E. Jean Carroll might deliver the first significant hit to Trump
The Hill: Trump, Fox News have a new point of tension: Tucker Carlson
New York Times: A Hot Mess in the Georgia Republican Party
The Hill: The right’s demonization of campus diversity, equity and inclusion programs must end
In the States
Associated Press: Michigan clerk who doubts election results faces recall
NBC 29 Charlottesville: Group calls Governor Youngkin’s voting rights restoration process into question
Guardian: Far-right California county’s bid to hand count votes will cost millions
