A ruling in an Alabama case upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, but challenges remain for communities of color.
Brennan Center
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a liberal nonprofit law and public policy institute.
What’s at Stake in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Election
On April 4, Wisconsin will hold an election for a seat on its state supreme court, which has had a clear conservative majority since 2008. Two candidates—judicial conservative Daniel Kelly and progressive Janet Protasiewicz—have advanced out of a four-way primary and are vying to replace a retiring conservative justice. The election, which has already broken records for spending and primary turnout, represents liberals’ first chance in a decade to break the conservative lock.
Media accounts say Wisconsin’s high-profile supreme court election is primarily about two issues: abortion and gerrymandering. That’s true, but the race also tells a broader story about the influence state courts are wielding in the face of divided government and eroding federal rights. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is resolving issues that federal courts and the state’s political branches can’t (or won’t) tackle. Abortion access, electoral maps and executive powers all hang in the balance.
Supreme Court Rejects ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Putting Limits on Lawmakers’ Powers
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory in a case about North Carolina’s congressional map. The theory would have emboldened state lawmakers and restricted the power of state courts to review certain election laws.
“Today, the Supreme Court rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances,” tweeted former President Barack Obama. “This ruling rejects the far-right theory that threatened to undermine our democracy, and makes clear that courts can continue defending voters’ rights—in North Carolina and in every state.”
What Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Historic Nomination Means to Women of Color in Law
Approximately one in three lawyers are women. Fewer than two in 10 lawyers are people of color. And only one in 115 justices of the Supreme Court has ever been a woman of color. That number could soon double as Ketanji Brown Jackson has become the first Black woman ever nominated to the highest court in the country.
Madiba Dennie and Elizabeth Hira are uniquely positioned to discuss this historic nomination: They’re both women of color, they’re both attorneys, and they both work at the Brennan Center for Justice on issues of democracy and equity. This discussion highlights the networks they have relied on, the progress that has been made and the challenges that remain, and the democracy they hope to build.
Women’s Rights and Democracy Are Inextricably Linked
Last fall, America was featured for the first time on a list of backsliding democracies. With inadequate progress in women’s participation in government, reproductive rights, and maternal mortality, this title may reflect recent attacks on gender equality. America’s longstanding and abysmal record on myriad gender equity markers has been the true harbinger for our downgraded democracy status.
U.S. Backslide on Abortion Rights Is a Grave Danger to Democracy, Say Both Reproductive Rights Experts and Legal Analysts
Saturday, Jan. 22, marked Roe v. Wade’s 49th anniversary—and it very well may be its last.
On Friday, Jan. 21, experts on democracy and elections from the Brennan Center and Ms. discussed the implications of the Texas abortion law S.B. 8 and the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that directly challenges the precedent of Roe.
Sponsored by Ms. and the Gender and Policy Center at George Mason University’s Schar School, the rousing discussion set the stage for how the U.S. got to this point, and outlined where we go from here.
The Justices Have No Robes
The Supreme Court faces a rule-of-law crisis of its own making.
We residents of the United States who are governed but not protected by its laws must now wonder: Which right will be next? And for whom? And if the Court does not exist to respect rights, why does it exist and why should it be respected?
What Happens When the Law Fails Those Who Are Learning to Protect It?
When rights, especially those that sustain our equal citizenship, are stripped away, it is inevitably deeply upsetting to all those who believe in and rely on those rights. But it is a unique and profound loss for law students, who are also experiencing an attack on their nascent professional identities. They are relying on those rights to fulfill their dreams.
The Government Has a Long History of Controlling Women—One That Never Ended
Abortion is not (just) a health issue. Whether we are willing to let women and people capable of becoming pregnant control their own bodies, for health or any other reason, is an equity issue—a question of who deserves bodily autonomy and freedom to reach their full potential.
Ultimately, abortion bans and restrictions are part of broader legal and societal structures that were unambiguously designed to not recognize women’s inherent equality.
Religion Must Not Substitute Science in the Abortion Debate
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed Texas law S.B.8, he provided an oft-heard reason for why the Lone Star state is effectively banning nearly all abortions: “Our creator endowed us with the right to life.”
Abbott’s religious invocation to justify Texas’s law, of course, begs the question: Whose vision of a creator, exactly?