I’ll provide the tl:dr upfront: without SCOTUS “reform”, everything else we do to regain a semblance of a true democracy, root out corruption and fix our clearly broken political system will be at best fragile and at worst for naught.
And by reform, I mean break up the current corrupt, partisan SCOTUS and put rules/laws in place to do our best to ensure we never get to this point again.
Not sold on the partisan “tip the scales” nature of this SCOTUS? Let’s take a walk down memory lane:
In 1870, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. It’s full text reads:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.In 1965, the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) was passed by Congress. This civil rights legislation was designed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and end discriminatory voting practices—especially in the South—that had long barred African Americans from voting. It outlawed literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers, and required certain jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws.
In 2006, in Purcell vs. Gonzalez, SCOTUS came up with the Purcell Principle. Per Democracy Docket, “…the Supreme Court, in deciding Purcell v. Gonzalez, reinstated a previously blocked citizenship law in Arizona just two and a half weeks before Election Day. In justifying its decision, the Court considered the timing of upcoming elections and determined that blocking the law weeks before Election Day caused confusion for both voters and election administrators. Importantly, in its ruling, the Court did not draw a line in the sand for what it defines as too close to an election to alter voting rules.” Marc Elias at Democracy Docket goes on to make some important points about Purcell:
It lacks clear standards, consistent application, and constitutional foundation.
It is a doctrine with no grounding in law or the Constitution
conservatives on the Supreme Court have wielded all too often to advantage white voters and Republicans at the expense of Black voters and Democrats
In its original form, it was aimed at preventing court orders that "result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls." But it rapidly expanded into something far broader: a tool to block any court order that might protect voting rights near an election, while allowing anti-voting measures to proceed unchallenged.
Remember this - the Purcell Principle is key to future SCOTUS rulings.
Also in 2006, the VRA was reauthorized after vigorous debate by votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House (all the negative House votes were by southern Republicans).
In 2013, in a 5-4 decision in Shelby County vs. Holder, SCOTUS essentially invalidated Section 5 of the VRA. This section addressed historical discrimination by requiring “preclearance” with the Department of Justice to make any change to voting laws to ensure the change did not deny or abridge the right to vote based on race of language minority status. Justice Roberts had previously proclaimed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating based on race.” IT’s that easy. Poof.
Now let’s fast forward a bit to a by-no-means-complete sampling of court decisions. Some changes were denied, some were approved, but ALL of them were essentially anti-voting and pro-discriminatory.
In 2021 in Georgia, a U. S. District Court denied a request to pause an anti-voting measure 2 ½ months before an election
In 2022 in Arkansas, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved a pause of a pro-voting ruling 1 ½ months before the election
In 2022 in Georgia, a U. S. District Court approved a pause to new Georgia maps 3 months before the primary election
In 2022 in Alabama, SCOTUS denied a lower court’s disapproval of a new congressional map. The lower court acted 4 months before primary elections
In 2022 in North Carolina, SCOTUS denied a request for new fairer congressional maps which were proposed 3 months before primary elections
In 2025, SCOTUS denied a farer Texas congressional map “in part because the district court had "improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign." At the time, the Texas congressional primary was still three months away.”
2 weeks ago, SCOTUS denied Louisiana’s congressional maps and ordered them changed for the 2026 election even though primary voting was already underway
While this was at the state level, 4 days ago the Virginia Supreme Court denied new congressional districts that voters had voted for - they simply invalidated the voters choice. The vote was 4-3 and all justices voting to deny the voters were Republicans.
2 days ago, “ten days before the Alabama primary election, the Supreme Court stripped Black voters of a congressional district they had won in court.” by denying new congressional maps approved by lower courts.
Racism is dead my a**.
Finally, while the Purcell Principal applied to changing voting laws, its shadow hung over Presidential Appointments as well.
On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia’s SCOTUS seat. This was roughly 8 months before the next Presidential election. Senate Majority Leader McConnell vowed not to hold a vote in the Senate saying it too close to a Presidential election and the “people should have a voice”.
On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s SCOTUS seat. This was roughly 12 months before the next Presidential election. On October 26, 2016, only 9 days before the election, the Senate voted to confirm Barrett (the 35 days from nomination to confirmation was the shortest period for confirming a SCOTUS justice in the history of the U.S.).
Without blunting the power of the current partisan hack SCOTUS, and instituting permanent reforms, we are screwed.
