People For Blog

PEOPLE FOR BLOG

PFAW Activists Host “Ditch Mitch” Debate Watching Party

On Monday night, Sen. Mitch McConnell and Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes went face-to-face in debate for the first and only time in their race, and PFAW activists were paying attention.



 

More than 50 people turned out to a debate watch party that People For the American Way co-hosted in Louisville – one of the largest in Kentucky.

Candidates sparred over raising the minimum wage and on whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act. McConnell tried repeatedly to tie Grimes to Obama and to portray her as anti-coal. Grimes fired back by blaming the gridlock and dysfunction in DC on McConnell. She also highlighted who McConnell really works for: “I'm not bought and paid for by the Koch brothers or any special interest.”

Sen. McConnell reminded Kentuckians that if he is re-elected and becomes Senate majority leader, he will help set the nation’s political agenda next year. That’s a pretty scary thought. And that’s why PFAW is working hard on the ground in Kentucky to save the Senate and keep millionaires and billionaires from deciding the future of our nation.

PFAW

PFAW Announces 2014 Endorsements for Federal Office

PFAW is proud to announce 13 new endorsements. These candidates and officials, representing a diverse and broad swath of constituencies, are some of the best and brightest progressive champions in the country.

  • Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
  • Staci Appel (IA-3)
  • Alan Grayson (FL-9)
  • Mike Honda (CA-17)
  • Ted Lieu (CA-33)
  • Gwen Moore (WI-4)
  • Pat Murphy (IA-01)
  • Mark Pocan (WI-2)
  • Chellie Pingree (ME-1)
  • Martha Robertson (NY-23)
  • Jeanne Shaheen (NH-SEN)
  • Mark Takano (CA-41)
  • Rob Zerban (WI-1)

These candidates have fought against big money in politics, promoted economic fairness and equality for all, and called for increasing educational opportunities for workers and students. They promote civil rights and voting rights, support marriage equality and employment protections for LGBTQ Americans, and believe women should maintain choice over their own health decisions. Many are endorsed by multiple leading progressive, labor, civil rights, women’s rights, and equality organizations.

PFAW encourages all members to consider supporting these terrific candidates’ campaigns.

Visit our 2014 Federal Candidate Endorsements page for more information.

UPDATE: PFAW Endorses Five New Candidates for Federal Office

PFAW

Fifth Circuit's Voter ID Decision Shows the Attitude of Bush's Judges

Last week, a federal district court judge concluded that Texas's strict voter ID law (SB 14) violated both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Judge Nelva Ramos concluded that the law was passed with illegitimate motives:

This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas Legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law's detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Unites States Constitution.

Nevertheless, yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can hold this fall's elections under the voter ID law anyway. Although the ruling was unanimous, the two Bush-43 judges on the panel (Edith Brown Clement and Catherina Haynes) took a very different approach to the case than did the Obama nominee.

Judge Gregg Costa, the court's newest member, wrote in his short concurrence:

The district court issued a thorough order finding that the Texas voter ID law is discriminatory. We should be extremely reluctant to have an election take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory. … I agree with Judge Clement that the only constant principle that can be discerned from the Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area is that its concern about confusion resulting from court changes to election laws close in time to the election should carry the day in the stay analysis. … On that limited basis, I agree a stay should issue.

Those recent Supreme Court actions Judge Costa cites are hard to interpret, since they came with no explanation. But they also didn't involve a judicial finding of intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution, which we have in this case.

While Costa's concurrence was only a paragraph, the Bush judges' opinion went on for many pages. Judge Clement (joined by Judge Haynes) wrote that Texas will be irreparably harmed if the stay is not issued: "When a statute is enjoined, the State necessarily suffers the irreparable harm of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws."

But what is the public interest in enforcing a law that a district judge concluded was passed with the intent to make it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote? What interest does Texas have in enforcing a law that violates the Constitution?

The two Bush-43 judges also stated critically that Judge Ramos didn't give a reason for applying the injunction so close to the beginning of an election, even though Texas warned it would disrupt the election process.

Perhaps "disrupting the election process" is warranted when that process has been intentionally designed to disenfranchise targeted groups.

While all three judges agreed to stay the district court's ruling and allow Texas to enforce its voter ID law, the different approach taken by Bush and Obama judges is notable.

PFAW Foundation

Did a Nevada Federal Judge Let Personal Beliefs Affect His Marriage Ruling?

The federal district court judge whose pre-Windsor decision to uphold Nevada's marriage ban was recently reversed by the Ninth Circuit has now raised serious questions about whether his ruling was inappropriately influenced by his personal beliefs.

Last Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit ordered Judge Robert C. Jones to sign an order ordering Nevada to allow same-sex couples to marry. That's standard procedure when a case is reversed by an appellate court.

What isn't standard procedure is for the lower court judge to refuse.

BuzzFeed has reported that the day after that order was issued, Judge Jones recused himself without explanation and had the case reassigned. Yet he felt no qualm about presiding over the trial stage of the case – and issuing a ruling against the couples in 2012.

Judge Jones should explain why he recused himself as soon as the Ninth Circuit order came down, because it looks really bad. It looks like his personal feelings about gays and lesbians are so strong that he recused himself rather than comply with a direct order of the Ninth Circuit. And if that is the case, then why didn't he recuse himself from the case at the very start? It certainly taints the legitimacy of his initial ruling against gay and lesbian couples.

This raises serious questions about his fitness for the bench. If Judge Jones has some other reason for his recusal, he should state them and restore public confidence in his judgeship.

PFAW Foundation

Texas Judge Could Teach the Roberts Court a Thing or Two

Late yesterday, federal district Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos struck down Texas' restrictive voter ID law. Judge Ramos found that it creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect on African Americans and Latinos, and is an unconstitutional poll tax. Most importantly, a careful analysis of the record led her to conclude that the law was passed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.

This is a terrific development for those who care about the right to vote. And the fact that the discrimination was intentional triggers Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Judge Ramos to subject Texas to the same type of preclearance conditions it was subject to under Section 5, before the notorious Shelby County decision. She is expected to decide whether to pursue that course of action within the next few days.

This is a textbook case of why courts matter, and why it matters who sits on those courts. Texas citizens' right to vote was being threatened by their own state government, in clear violation of the law. The federal courts have now stepped in to make sure the promises of the U.S. Constitution are kept.

The opening of Judge Ramos' opinion makes clear that she recognizes the preeminent importance of the right to vote:

The right to vote: It defines our nation as a democracy. It is the key to what Abraham Lincoln so famously extolled as a "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The Supreme Court of the United States, placing the power of the right to vote in context, explained [in 1964]: "Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." [footnotes removed]

She could teach a thing or two to the five conservatives on the Roberts Court, whose Shelby County ruling gave the green light to politicians in Texas and elsewhere eagerly seeking to make it harder for certain people to vote.

PFAW Foundation

The Roberts Court Gives North Carolinians a Reason to Vote

Late yesterday, the Roberts Court allowed North Carolina to re-impose obstacles to voting that particularly harm African Americans. Over the dissents of Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, and without explanation, the Justices issued a stay of the Fourth Circuit's order that the state not impose two particularly onerous rules (elimination of same-day registration and termination of out-of-precinct voting) until the conclusion of voters' lawsuits against the state currently pending in district court.

Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that these restrictions are a direct result of last year's Shelby County decision.

For decades, §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, through its preclearance requirement, worked to safe guard long obstructed access to the ballot by African-American citizens. In Shelby County y. Holder, this Court found the Act's §4 coverage formula obsolete, a ruling that effectively nullified §5's preclearance requirement. Immediately after the Shelby County decision, North Carolina enacted omnibus House Bill 589, which imposed voter identification requirements, cut short early voting by a week, prohibited local election boards from keeping the polls open on the final Saturday afternoon before elections, eliminated same-day voter registration, terminated preregistration of 16- and 17-year olds in high schools, authorized any registered voter to challenge ballots cast early or on Election Day, and barred votes cast in the wrong precinct from being counted at all. These measures likely would not have survived federal preclearance. The Court of Appeals determined that at least two of the measures—elimination of same-day registration and termination of out-of-precinct voting—risked significantly reducing opportunities for black voters to exercise the franchise in violation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act. I would not displace that record-based judgment.  [internal citations removed]

As North Carolinians go the polls next month, some will be turned away because same-day registration will no longer be available. Others will have their entire ballots thrown away rather than counted because the voter went to the wrong precinct, silencing their voices on a key statewide race that is the same in every precinct: The one for U.S. Senate, where the winner will likely vote on several Supreme Court confirmations and hundreds of lower federal court judges during their six-year term.

So voters might want to consider Shelby County when they cast that vote for Senate. Do they want a far-right senator who would confirm more judges like the ideologues who have made it so much easier to disenfranchise African Americans?

Courts matter. And next month, North Carolinians will have a chance to shape our courts for years to come.

PFAW

Marriage Bans Overturned in Idaho and Nevada

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of equality, striking down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt delivered the ruling for the panel, which applied heightened scrutiny because the bans are applied on the basis of sexual orientation, and concluded that the state laws violate the equal protection rights of lesbians and gays who wish to marry. The court took note of the particular harm marriage bans impose on families:

“To allow same-sex couples to adopt children and then to label their families as second-class because the adoptive parents are of the same sex is cruel as well as unconstitutional. Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values.’”  

The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeals of five states seeking to reverse similar cases in which a lower court ruled state marriage bans unconstitutional. This morning, however, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked the appeals court ruling and asked for a response from the plaintiffs involved in Idaho’s marriage lawsuit by Thursday at 5 pm. 

PFAW Foundation

Another Nail in the Coffin for Baker v. Nelson

A Supreme Court decision not to take an appeal of a lower court ruling is generally (and correctly) recognized as not being a ruling on the merits by the nation's highest court. But yesterday's determination not to hear several lower court decisions on marriage is arguably an exception. It can be seen as significantly weakening the argument made by anti-equality advocates that a decades-old Supreme Court one-sentence ruling in a case called Baker v. Nelson prevents lower courts from addressing the constitutionality of marriage bans.

Baker was a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972. A gay couple had challenged Minnesota's ban on same-sex couples getting married, and they had lost in the state supreme court. They appealed, and the Supreme Court responded with a one-sentence order, dismissing the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Although it was just one sentence and done without oral arguments or a written opinion, the summary dismissal was nonetheless a decision on the merits of the constitutional issue. As a result, most of the lower courts that have addressed the same issue four decades later have had to contend with this case.

Especially since the Windsor case striking down DOMA, most judges have agreed that while the Supreme Court itself has not overruled Baker, doctrinal developments since 1972 on Equal Protection generally – and on anti-gay discrimination in particular – have completely undermined it. Normally, the Justices tell lower courts that only the Supreme Court can overrule a Supreme Court precedent. Until that happens, lower courts should consider themselves bound by the precedent, even if the high court has undermined it over the years. But it has also made an exception if the precedent is, like Baker, a summary dismissal. In that case, courts do not have to follow it if subsequent doctrinal developments indicate it is no longer good law. That's what has allowed so many courts to get to the merits of the constitutional challenges to marriage bans.

Yesterday arguably represents another step in Baker's demise. Several landmark rulings over the past twenty years have recognized the fundamental equality, liberty, and dignity of lesbians and gays, making it hard to say that the Court still considers marriage equality lawsuits as not even presenting "a substantial federal question."

A more direct rebuke of Baker occurred when the Supreme Court issued an order accepting certiorari in the Proposition 8 case, which presented the exact same issue as the older case. Even though the Justices ultimately didn't address the merits, it is hard to claim with a straight face that the Supreme Court accepted cert and engaged in spirited oral arguments on an issue where there was no substantial federal question.

Yesterday's dismissal of the marriage cases represents another important stage in the long death of Baker. Three circuit courts concluded they could address the merits of the marriage equality arguments, Baker notwithstanding. Just by considering the issue, they rejected the holding of Baker. And certainly the conclusion they reached – that the United States Constitution prohibits states from banning same-sex couples from marrying – is a direct repudiation of the older case.

The Supreme Court takes it very seriously when a lower court simply disregards its precedents and says they are no longer good law. It's fine for a lower court to distinguish a case from an important previous precedent – that happens all the time. But to say the precedent can now be ignored would be a major challenge to the Supreme Court's authority … if the Justices thought for a minute that the old case was still good law.

But yesterday's decision sends a powerful message about Baker. A majority of Justices voted not to take the cases. If a majority considered Baker good law, we would not likely have seen an official Court action supported by a majority of the Justices choosing not to hear cases where lower courts declared themselves not bound by the precedent.

As additional circuit courts consider challenges to state marriage bans, they should not consider themselves bound by Baker v. Nelson.

PFAW Foundation

Supreme Court Action on Marriage Cases Is No Surprise

The Supreme Court's decision this morning to not hear appeals of any of the pending marriage equality appeals came as a surprise to some. But as PFAW Foundation's Supreme Court 2014-2015 Term Preview explained last month, most of the Justices may have strongly wanted to avoid taking these cases if at all possible:

Conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who have in case after case shown their hostility to LGBT equality but may be unsure of how Kennedy would vote, might not be willing to risk a Supreme Court precedent that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. From their perspective, if they can't change the outcome around the country, why make it worse by adding a jurisprudential nightmare from the nation's highest court that would taint American law for decades to come?

For Justices likely to recognize the constitutional right to marriage equality, the calculation might be different. They, too, not knowing Kennedy's position, might not want to risk a 5-4 ruling in the "wrong" direction on a major constitutional and societal issue. But even if they could be certain of being in the majority, they might find advantages to having the Court stay out. Justice Ginsburg, for instance, has suggested publicly that Roe v. Wade went "too far, too fast," provoking a backlash that could otherwise have been avoided. If the legal question of marriage equality is being decided rightly in all the circuit courts, some Justices might rather leave well enough alone. In fact, Justice Ginsburg told a group of law students in mid-September that without a circuit split, she saw "no urgency" for the Court to take up the issue now, although she added that she expects the Court to take it up "sooner or later."

It looks like the "sooner or later" will be when – or if – a circuit court ever rules against same-sex couples seeking to vindicate their right to marry.

The Term Preview also discussed some of the specific legal issues that an eventual Supreme Court ruling could address, beyond the black-or-white question of whether same-sex couples can marry. For now, absent a circuit court ruling upholding a marriage ban and a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, these questions will remain unresolved at the national level. But they are important questions:

Exactly which constitutional right do the bans violate? While numerous courts have ruled in favor of same-sex couples, they have been anything but unanimous in their reasoning: Some have suggested that the bans violate the Due Process Clause, because the longstanding, fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. Other judges indicate that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they deny the right to marry based on the sex of the people seeking to get married. Still others suggest that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate against gays and lesbians. While the different legal rationales would all have the same immediate result (marriage equality), they could create very different legal precedents and have very different impacts down the line as lower courts consider other types of discrimination, whether aimed at gays and lesbians, at transgender people, or at others.

A Supreme Court ruling might decide what level of scrutiny the Equal Protection Clause requires for laws that discriminate against gay people, an issue not squarely faced in previous cases. Most government classifications are subject to – and easily pass – "rational basis" scrutiny by the courts: The law is constitutional as long as it's rationally related to some legitimate government interest. (The Court has said that animus against gays and lesbians is not a legitimate purpose, which in the past has let it bypass the question as to whether anti-gay laws warrant more scrutiny from the courts.)

But a few types of laws trigger heightened Equal Protection scrutiny. Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny: They must be substantially related to an important government interest. Race-based classifications are generally subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level: They must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. If the Court rules that laws discriminating against lesbians and gays warrant some level of heightened scrutiny, that would have an enormous impact nationwide on all kinds of laws that discriminate against lesbians and gays, not just marriage bans.

The Court's discussion of this issue could also shed light on whether eliminating private discrimination against LGBT people is (in the Court's eyes) a compelling government interest. This could have an enormous impact as courts consider right wing challenges to anti-discrimination laws on the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or state-law analogs.

This last point is particularly important, given efforts by the far right to reframe anti-discrimination and women's health laws as attacks on religious liberty. As affiliate People For the American Way Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery wrote earlier today on Right Wing Watch:

[R]edefining "religious liberty" has become the central culture war issue and the primary legal and public relations strategy chosen by conservative evangelicals and their allies in the Catholic hierarchy to resist the advance of LGBT equality and restrict women's access to reproductive care.

This right-wing reframing effort might have been hurt by a strong Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the critical importance of ending discrimination against lesbians and gays.

PFAW Foundation

Let Freedom (and Wedding Bells) Ring

With the far-right Roberts Court, it's usually good news when they choose not to address a case, and that's especially so this morning: The Court announced it will not be hearing the appeals of any of the pending marriage cases.

That means the stays of the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits' pro-equality rulings should be lifted and marriages should soon be allowed in Utah and Oklahoma (10th Circuit), Indiana and Wisconsin (7th Circuit), and Virginia (4th Circuit).

And in the other non-equality states in those three circuits, loving couples can now go to court and cite their circuit's ruling as binding precedent guaranteeing their right to marry. And they should win: Each circuit decision binds district courts and other three-judge appellate panels in the circuit. The only way to avoid the application of three-judge panel’s decision to other states in the circuit would be for there to be a contrary ruling by a panel - called an en banc panel - made up of all of the active appellate judges in that circuit.

Congratulations to the loving couples in those states for whom the Constitution's promise of liberty and equality will no longer be ideals withheld from them. This is a textbook case of the federal courts doing exactly what they were set up to do: vindicating those whose basic legal rights have been violated.

PFAW Foundation

Kentucky Activists Protest Mitt and Mitch Fundraiser

On Thursday, PFAW members joined MoveOn.org, Kentucky AFL-CIO, and other activists to protest Sen. Mitch McConnell’s pro-corporate agenda outside of a high-dollar fundraiser for the senator featuring Mitt Romney. The exclusive event was priced at $1,000-$5,000 a ticket.

Activists, standing up against big money in politics, called for Sen. McConnell to listen to Kentuckians and not just to the billionaires and corporations that fund his politics. They held signs that read “Ditch Mitch” and “Corporations are not People.”

 

Kentucky AFL-CIO President Bill Londrigan joined the protest, along with PFAW organizers and grassroots activists.

 

PFAW

The Supreme Court's 2014-2015 Term: PFAW Member Telebriefing

Yesterday, People For the American Way members participated in a telebriefing to discuss the Supreme Court’s upcoming term and to preview some of the important cases the Court will be hearing this year. The call was kicked off by PFAW President Michael Keegan and moderated by PFAW Director of Communications Drew Courtney. PFAW’s Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon reviewed highlights of his recent report previewing the Supreme Court’s upcoming term and answered questions from members. Also on the call and answering questions were Senior Fellow Elliot Mincberg and Executive Vice President Marge Baker.

Among the cases Gordon previewed were Young v. UPS, Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, Mach Mining v. EEOC, Holt v. Hobbs, and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama / Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. The issues addressed in these cases range from employment discrimination and workers’ rights, to religious liberty and voting rights.

He also discussed potential cases that the Court could still add for this term, which included cases on marriage equality, the Affordable Care Act, and contraception coverage by religious nonprofits—the “sequels to Hobby Lobby.”

Members’ questions focused on how the country can move forward to change some of the more damaging decisions like Citizens United, and what each person could do to effect change and impact the courts. Emphasizing what is at stake this election, both PFAW President Michael Keegan and Gordon called on people to vote in November because “when you vote … for the Senate, you are voting for the next Supreme Court justice.”

Listen to the full audio of the telebriefing for more information.

 

PFAW

New Poll Demonstrates Bipartisan Support to Restore the Voting Rights Act

For nearly half a century, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has helped protect each American’s right to vote, a founding principle of our democracy. Last year, the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted a key provision of the VRA and imperiled those hard-won voting rights. But new polling finds that across the board, Americans want to see these protections restored.

The poll, conducted by Lake Research Partners and released this week, finds that Americans believe laws must be in place to ensure that each individual has a voice in our democratic process. More than 8 in 10 voters favor the Voting Rights Act for combatting persistent issues with voting discrimination, including 72 percent of respondents who are strongly in favor of VRA protections. Additionally, over two-thirds of voters from diverse racial, political and geographical backgrounds support restoring the Voting Rights Act and strengthening protections for the right to vote.

The overwhelming response in support of strong voting protections underscores the failure of Congress to listen to the American people. Even in the face of this broad consensus, House Republican leadership has made it clear that protecting the right to vote is not a priority for them.

PFAW

Fairer Elections Through Public Financing: Montgomery County, Maryland, Leads the Way

It’s no secret that our country’s elections have been taken over by out-of-control spending, and this year’s rapidly approaching midterms are no exception. Maybe that’s why it’s so refreshing to read about some recent progress in the fight to reclaim our democracy from corporations and billionaires. Today the Montgomery County Council in Maryland is set to vote on legislation that would create a system of small-donor public financing for local elections — and it’s looking likely to pass.

It’s a system based on a simple premise: swap in lots of small donations from local community members in place of a handful of large donations from powerful interests. Encourage local people to give money to candidates they support by matching those donations with public funds. Not only does this empower regular people to get involved in campaigns, since they see their dollar going further, but it makes it smart for candidates to seek support from, and be accountable to, their own community members rather than wealthy special interests.

The Baltimore Sun explains how it would work in Montgomery County:

Beginning in 2015, candidates for county executive or council would qualify to have their political campaigns publicly funded if they attracted a sufficient number of small contributions of $5 to $150. In the case of a council race, for instance, it would be 125 donations adding up to at least $10,000. After that, campaigns would be largely publicly financed on a matching basis….The system would be voluntary, but participants would not be able to accept donations larger than $150 or from political action committees or labor organizations.

Public financing has worked in other cities across the country. Take New York City as an example. A 2012 Brennan Center analysis of the effects of the city’s public finance model found that the matching system helped “bring participants into the political process who traditionally are less likely to be active.” The study suggested that the model encouraged candidates to reach out to a more diverse group of people to support their campaigns, rather than centering all of their efforts on the wealthiest donors.

And when candidates start getting into office because of the support of their constituents, rather than because a few wealthy special interests have bankrolled their campaigns, the policy agenda can shift from one designed to keep powerful interests happy to one designed to serve the common good.

Legislators across the country should take note of what’s happening in Montgomery County. Polling consistently shows that the overwhelming majority of voters want to see elected officials work to lessen big money’s impact on our elections. In other words, Americans understand the problem but are hungry for solutions. Along with long-term fixes like pushing to amend the Constitution to overturn decisions like Citizens United, small donor public financing can be a way to put everyday Americans’ voices at the center of our political process, where they belong.

PFAW

The Roberts Court vs. Ohio Voters

Earlier this month, supporters of voting rights cheered when a federal district judge struck down restrictions on early voting in Ohio. That ruling was upheld by the Sixth Circuit. But today, the five conservative members of the Supreme Court ordered that the ruling be stayed until the high court can act on a formal appeal by the state (which hasn't been filed yet).

There was no written opinion, just an order, along with a sentence saying that the four moderate Justices dissented.

It is a great day for those in Ohio who seek to make it harder for certain Americans to vote. But it is worth recalling the quote from a 1964 Supreme Court ruling cited by district court Judge Peter Economus earlier this month:

The right to vote is a fundamental right. "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."

Today, the Roberts Court seems to have said:

Never you mind all that pretty talk from the ‘60s about the right to vote.

This, just a few days before the official beginning of the 2014 Term. It is not an auspicious sign of things to come.

PFAW Foundation