Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday criticized decisions by the court’s conservative majority, arguing they have increased political polarization and weakened democratic processes in the U.S. Speaking at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C., Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, highlighted rulings that narrowed the Voting Rights Act, limited campaign finance regulations, and enabled partisan gerrymandering as key factors in the nation’s political divisions.
Kagan’s remarks came two weeks before the November midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. She described the court’s recent decisions as ‘blind to their deleterious effects on the political system,’ stating that the rulings have created a democracy that ‘does not work as well as it should.’
Supreme Court’s stance on election-related rulings
In 2019, the court’s conservative majority ruled that federal courts cannot intervene in disputes over partisan gerrymandering, classifying such cases as political questions beyond judicial review. The majority also upheld campaign finance regulations as violations of free speech rights, further limiting oversight of election spending.
Kagan, who dissented in several of these cases, specifically criticized the 2023 narrowing of the Voting Rights Act, which had historically protected minority voting rights. The decision triggered a redistricting frenzy in Republican-led states, including Texas, where electoral maps were redrawn to eliminate districts with Black voting majorities. The changes were implemented ahead of the 2024 elections, prompting concerns about voter disenfranchisement and unequal representation.
Partisan gerrymandering and political polarization
Kagan argued that partisan gerrymandering has accelerated a ‘race to the bottom’ among political parties, pushing candidates toward ideological extremes to avoid primary challenges. She noted that states with competitive electorates—such as those with mixed Democratic and Republican voters—are increasingly being drawn to favor one party, ‘turning all red or all blue’ in ways she described as ‘destructive to democracy.’
The court’s conservative majority, which holds a 6-3 advantage, has not acted to curb gerrymandering despite its role in deepening polarization. Critics, including Kagan, contend that the rulings have eroded public trust in elections, with many Americans viewing campaign financing as a ‘nightmare’ that distorts political representation.
Reactions and long-term implications
The midterm elections are widely seen as a referendum on the Biden administration’s policies, with Republicans seeking to regain control of Congress. The GOP has embraced the court’s rulings, particularly in states like Texas, where redistricting efforts have been framed as legal and necessary adjustments to reflect voter preferences.
Democrats, however, argue that the court’s decisions have entrenched minority rule by diluting the voting power of racial minorities and urban populations. Advocacy groups have warned that the 2023 Voting Rights Act ruling could lead to further suppression of minority votes, particularly in Southern states with histories of racial discrimination.
Legal scholars note that the court’s approach to election-related cases reflects a broader judicial philosophy prioritizing state authority over federal oversight. This stance has been reinforced in recent rulings, including those limiting the federal government’s role in enforcing voting protections.
Background: The Voting Rights Act and partisan gerrymandering
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark civil rights law designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting. A key provision, Section 5, required certain states with histories of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing election laws. The Supreme Court struck down this requirement in 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder), leading to a surge in restrictive voting laws.
Partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing electoral districts to favor one political party, has been a contentious issue for decades. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged its unconstitutional nature in some cases, it has declined to set a standard for judicial intervention, leaving the issue largely to state legislatures.
Upcoming elections and potential reforms
With the midterms approaching, advocates on both sides are mobilizing around the issue of election integrity. Some Democratic-led states have pursued independent redistricting commissions to reduce partisan bias, while Republican-controlled states have defended their maps as legal exercises of legislative authority.
Calls for reform have grown, with proposals ranging from constitutional amendments to federal legislation that would restore protections under the Voting Rights Act. However, such efforts face significant hurdles in a divided Congress and a skeptical Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on additional election-related cases in its current term, including challenges to voting restrictions and ballot access laws passed in several states. The outcomes could further shape the landscape of American democracy ahead of the 2024 presidential election.