Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record on racial issues and his answers to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week raise red flags about how he would rule on voting rights if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
During his confirmation hearing to become a Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh bragged about hiring people of color as law clerks and decried the use of the “n” word. But this proved mere window dressing as his answers to the senators’ questions brought his racist views into sharp focus.
When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) asked him whether he agreed with Donald Trump that there was blame on both sides during the Charlottesville Nazi rally, Kavanaugh refused to say “no.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) queried Kavanaugh about an amicus brief he co-authored with Robert Bork in a 1999 sag in which they argued that it was unconstitutional to prevent people who weren’t Native Hawaiians from voting for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Hirono quoted an email in which Kavanaugh wrote, “I think the testimony needs to make clear that any program targeting Native Hawaiians as a group is subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable validity under the Constitution.”
That email was one of tens of thousands of documents the GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee had marked “committee confidential” in an unprecedented attempt to hide them from the public. By releasing that email, Hirono risked censure, discipline or removal from the Senate.
Hirono, who said Kavanaugh’s views on Native Hawaiians are “factually wrong” and incredibly offensive, fortalte den nominerede:
"Jeg tror, du har et problem her. Dit synspunkt er, at hawaiianere ikke fortjener beskyttelse som oprindelige folk i henhold til forfatningen, og dit argument rejser et alvorligt spørgsmål om, hvordan du ville stemme om forfatningsmæssigheden af programmer, der gavner Alaskas indfødte. Jeg tror, at mine kolleger fra Alaska burde være dybt bekymrede over dine synspunkter."
I en Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kavanaugh called the program “Hawaii’s naked racial spoils system.” Harris asked Kavanaugh whether he knew that “racial spoils system” is commonly used by white supremacists. Kavanaugh said he didn’t.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) confronted Kavanaugh with another racist expression he had used, this time while working in the George W. Bush administration. Booker queried the nominee about his characterization of an affirmative action program as “a naked racial set-aside.” Kavanaugh had used the offensive phrase in an email criticizing an affirmative action program under consideration by the Supreme Court. Like Hirono, Booker risked censure, discipline or removal by releasing this email, which had been marked “committee confidential.”
The Voting Rights Act in Jeopardy
Kavanaugh har kun afgjort én stemmeretssag. I 2012 skrev han udtalelsen til et tre-dommerpanel i South Carolina mod USA, som opretholdt en vælger-id-lov. Obamas justitsministerium havde modsat sig loven og fandt, at den var i strid med Voting Rights Act, fordi den kunne fratage titusindvis af ikke-hvide vælgere, som var mindre tilbøjelige end hvide til at have identifikation.
Justitsministeriet fremlagde beviser, der viser, at South Carolina-loven belastede ikke-hvide vælgere uforholdsmæssigt og væsentligt. Ekspertudsagn viste, at sorte vælgere var mere end dobbelt så tilbøjelige til ikke at have den nødvendige identifikation som hvide vælgere.
Men Kavanaugh tildelte folkevalgte mere vægt. Han købte ind i argumentet om, at loven ville forhindre vælgersvindel, selvom staten ikke indførte beviser til støtte for den påstand.
Landemærket 1965 Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
En person, der hævder, at en amtslig, kommunal eller statslig lov overtræder stemmeretsloven, behøver ikke bevise, at loven blev vedtaget med racistisk hensigt. Han eller hun behøver kun at bevise, at loven ville have den virkning, at det gør det sværere for en farvet person at stemme.
NAACP President Cornell Brooks testified at Jeff Sessions’s attorney general confirmation hearing that the Voting Rights Act “is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights.”
I 2013-sagen af Shelby County mod Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Act, which established a formula for preclearance of jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination.
“We’ve seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other” since Shelby was decided, Brooks said.
I vælger-id-sagen i South Carolina, Kavanaugh havde afvist at tilslutte sig en separat tilslutning underskrevet af de to andre dommere i panelet, hvilket bekræftede den "vigtige funktion, som Section 5 af Voting Rights Act har spillet her."
Valgsvindel bruges som et påskud for at undertrykke stemmeretten. EN 2014 study reported by The Washington Post fandt kun 31 tilfælde af vælgersvindel ud af mere end 1 milliard afgivne stemmesedler fra 2000 til 2014.
“From Ohio to Wisconsin to Georgia, the vestiges of Jim Crow have resurfaced under a new cloak, unchecked and unabated,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-Louisiana), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, in a statement to the senators at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing
Faktisk siden 2010, 23 stater har vedtaget mere restriktive stemmelove, according to the Brennan Center.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) nævnte to eksempler - North Carolina og Texas - mens han spurgte Kavanaugh.
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in NAACP mod North Carolina slog ned i North Carolinas stemmelov fra 2013, der fastsatte et krav om foto-id og eliminerede registrering samme dag, afstemning uden for området og forhåndsregistrering af gymnasieelever. Efter at have anmodet om data om stemmemønstre for forskellige racer, havde North Carolina lovgivere skrevet en lov, der ville "målrette mod afroamerikanere med næsten kirurgisk præcision," sagde retten.
Og i Veasey mod Perry, a US District Court held that Texas’s voter ID law created an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, had an impermissibly discriminatory effect on Latinos and African Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The court also found the provision in question constituted an unconstitutional poll tax.
Efter at have reciteret Texas' dystre historie med at nægte adgang til meningsmålingerne, bemærkede retten: "Denne historie beskriver ikke kun en hang til diskrimination i Texas med hensyn til at stemme, men den udviser en genstridighed, der har varet ved gennem generationer på trods af den føderale regerings gentagne indgriben. regeringen og dens domstole på vegne af minoritetsborgere."
Tidligt sidste år vendte Attorney General Sessions Obamas justitsministeriums politik om at udfordre vælger-id-lovene. Nu griber justitsministeriet ind til fordel for stater, der vedtager foranstaltninger for at begrænse lige adgang til stemmesedler.
I lyset af udbredelsen af love, der udgør hindringer for afstemningen, vil Højesteret have mulighed for yderligere at tømme stemmeretsloven.
Conservative organizations continue to cry “voter fraud” as a foil to enact laws that suppress voting rights for people of color. Kavanaugh’s entry onto the Court will make five solidly right-wing justices. The fate of the Voting Rights Act hangs in the balance.
Copyright Truthout. Genoptrykt med tilladelse.
Marjorie Cohn er professor emerita ved Thomas Jefferson School of Law, tidligere præsident for National Lawyers Guild, vicegeneralsekretær i International Association of Democratic Lawyers og et rådgivende bestyrelsesmedlem i Veterans for Peace. En opdateret udgave af hendes bog, Droner og målrettet drab: Juridiske, moralske og geopolitiske spørgsmål, blev udgivet for nylig.
ZNetwork finansieres udelukkende gennem sine læseres generøsitet.
Doner