Getty Images
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has long opposed the Voting Rights Act, so it didn't surprise anyone when he was outwardly hostile towards the law during oral arguments this week. Indeed, the jurist seemed well prepared with talking points he delivered with great authority.
"Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. When Verrilli said he did not know, Roberts answered the question for him: "Massachusetts." Moments later, the chief justice did it again, asking, "Which state has the greatest disparity in registration between white and
African American?" Again the solicitor general did not know, and again Roberts said, "Massachusetts."
James Carter took a closer look at the latest information on voting and registration from the U.S. Census Bureau and found that Roberts appeared to be completely wrong. What's more, the Boston Globe talked to Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who's eager to explain just how mistaken the conservative justice is. "I'm calling him out," Galvin said.
Galvin was not alone in his view. Academics and Massachusetts politicians said that Roberts appeared to be misguided.... Galvin and political scientists speculated that Roberts drew his conclusions using US Census Bureau data known as "The Current Population Survey," which collects information on voting and registration every other year. Political scientists say this is one of the few national databases, if not the only one, providing state-by-state voting information.
But a review of those census data appears to contradict Roberts, showing such states as Washington, Arizona, and Minnesota with similar if not bigger gaps between black and white voters.
"The concept of black communities in Massachusetts not voting is an old slur, and it's not true," Galvin said. "I guess the point [Roberts] is trying to make is Mississippi is doing so much better they don't need the Voting Rights Act. He can still relay that conclusion, but he shouldn't be using phony statistics. It's deceptive, and it's truly disturbing."
Supreme Court justices almost never speak to the press, and Roberts' office did not respond to the Globe's request for information to support the claim he raised this week. And as a practical matter, it seems likely Roberts has made up his mind anyway.
But his rhetoric and our reality appear to be at odds.
Reading the transcript, it's clear that Roberts rejects the argument that Southern states, with a history of systemic discrimination and institutional racism, should be subjected to tougher scrutiny than other states. To that end, the justice was eager to argue that a Southern "red" state like Mississippi does a great job on registering and turning out African-American voters, while a Northern "blue" state like Massachusetts does an awful job.
But Roberts probably should have checked with a political scientist first.
According to the census figures, a larger percentage of blacks voted in Mississippi than whites, one percentage point more.
But political scientists caution against drawing sweeping conclusions from the census survey or using it to compare states. The black population in nearly one-fourth of states surveyed in 2010 was so small that it was not possible to make statistically reliable comparisons. And the margin of error for nearly another quarter of the states, including Massachusetts, was in the double digits.
"The margin of error is huge," said Michael P. McDonald, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University who specializes in American elections. "They're not reliable numbers." [...]
When scrutinizing voter turnout numbers, political scientists said it is imperative to look at those figures in the context of the election being held. Was it a national, state, or local election? Was it a midterm election? Did the candidates heavily court voters within communities of color? And what is the make-up of the black community, citizens registered to vote or immigrants who have not become citizens? Otherwise, the numbers exist in isolation, analysts said.
Massachusetts probably shouldn't hold its collective breath waiting for an apology, but here's hoping Roberts at least considers the details before striking down all or part of the landmark civil-rights legislation.
Leave a Comment:
Right wing media is lying about every single aspect of this. I just listened to Ben Shapiro defend Scalia, Shapiro claimed only Al Sharpton was upset with Scalia's words about "racial entitlement", when in fact every decent person is aghast...
The Scotus ought to be prohibited from watching faux news as it is classified as brainwashing .
It's like when you talk to your crazy uncle or some person with irrational views. Chances are they've been "Fair and Balanced" by the nonstop propaganda.
exactly
Regardless of race, we all are entitled to vote.
This is an example of the problem of using statistics.
No. That is like observing people with their heads on fire due to a fundamental misunderstanding about gasoline, and then concluding that this is the problem with gasoline.
.
This is an example of the problem of ignorance about the science of statistics. That's all. Statistics works just fine and can be relied on for accurate predictions.
Just ask Nate Silver.
Roberts, at least, wasn't 'using' statistics. He was simply lying.
From the Boston.com article linked above:
No, this is an example of someone who's already made up their mind proceeding to misread or invent statistics to support that decision. Why even bother with oral arguments? I've become increasingly convinced that the problem with politics now is that at some point we achieved a critical mass of people who know what the answer is and therefore have stopped thinking critically. Debate and compromise become impossible. And there's no obvious way forward to fix the problem - for exactly the same reason.
When I was studying statistics, it was made clear that you could make the statistical data anything you wanted it to be by how you approached the numbers!!!!
@C.Francis,
I think you need to retake that course, and for good measure, try a different instructor...
But a review of those census data appears to contradict Roberts
so how is this proof? how does it appear? and do we make judgments on appearances. statistics can be manipulated to say almost anything.
the fact is the voting rights act is discrimitory. it creates a 2nd class of states that do not have the ability to creat laws that the people of those states want. Scalia was right, the voting rights act and affirmative action are equivilant to racial preference. the exact thing that these law were supose to correct.
I think it's funny that in penn the black pathers were caught on tape intimidating people at a poll site and there wasn't any charges but when states try to regain their constitutional rights back, its a big deal.
Capt.Kid,
Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of the states affected by the voting rights act are still of the mindset that if your not a white male, your not qualified to do much for yourself (be it think, vote, make decisions about your body, etc)?
Statistics are just fine provided they are correctly understood. What sometimes happens, however, is that people don't fully understand how the underlying data was collected, and hence make claims, which they attribute to those statistics, which the data do not support.
But this does not appear to be a case of misunderstanding anything. Rather, it appears to be a simple lie he concocted to support a conclusion he has already predetermined.
The modern Conservative movement ala the Federalist Society - we already know the right and proper conclusion to our idea of who gets to share in the bounties of democracy, and now all we have to do is set in place the road map to get there:
Win state houses after the census to set gerrymandered districts.
Challenge the Voting Rights Act in court, arguing in front of like minded judges put on the bench specifically because of their like mindedness (Roberts, Scalia and Alito).
Implement severely strict voter qualification laws.
And, finally, be willing to use disgraced legal doctrine rendered during Reconstruction, and conveniently usable today by such monopolists of our nation's politics, its economy, and its democratic well-being!
Pshaw, pshaw I say to Roberts' prejudice! -Kevo
I believe that instead of "like-minded judges" you meant "like-mindless judges" as they appear to put talking points before reasoned discussion. Alas for letting Faux News pick our SCOTUS.
Aren't justices supposed to rule on presented evidence/facts rather than present their own?
Justices on the Supreme Court are allowed to do whatever they wish. Their role is far less circumscribed than judges on lower courts.
EXACTLY! Seems that's happening less and less with this Roberts-Scalia-Alito Supreme Court. Scalia is the worst offender. They come in with their minds made up which side they're arguing rather than LISTENING to the arguments and making a ruling based on that. It's an insult to the whole system.
It's an insult to democracy.
Geez...his wife took in millions from the Heritage foundation so there is no way this judge will ever rule on anything contrary to this foundation's agenda. The right wing of this court has been paid for already...just look at Bush v Gore...oh that's right...the court forbids you to make reference to it as it was a one time deal that doesn't allow an explanation.
Gee John calling only balls and strikes.
bad when the chief justices lies to be able to call ball four instead of strike three!
Glad to see someone else remembers the "balls and strikes" comment from Roberts' confirmation hearing. Of course, I saw that comment at the time as nothing but a pile of disingenuous b.s.
And this illustrates a common trait of the Authoritarian personality. making up your own statistics, and actually believing them. Another is using your position of power to bully and coerce others to accept this false data, even when confronted with actual facts.
Authoritarian Personality Syndrome is common amongst Conservatives.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
They bluster, they blow, knowing that humans innate response will be to submit to the courts "Authority", and that is how they win false arguments.
This , alone, should disqualify this man from being on this court, or in any level of Government.
If a Supreme Court justice decides a case on the basis of information that is demonstrably false, can he be impeached and removed from the Court?
Well, that depends on what you mean by "can be."
Impeachment is an inherently political process. The rules get made up along the way.
Sort of - you would have to determine if a particular action violated "good Behavior" that could be interpreted to be Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors - then get 2/3rds of the Senate to go along.
Maybe we need to reconsider those "lifetime" appointments especially as these people age. While I get right-wing ideology and a rigid adherence to such, it does appear that it has closed the minds of the "Justices" when it comes to "the law". Scalywag in particular is far past his use by date, his out-bursts and animosity towards minorities clearly put him in the camp of one whose "judgement" is compromised and biased. While Roberts is just bent on destroying everything that has helped equalize US as a society.
Remember all the praise put on Roberts when he was nominated? He was just so WONDERFUL!!!!
DEMOCRATS need to remember THAT so they can better prepare for future nominations , and force them to admit , or deny their prejudices , that way if it ever comes down to impeaching them , they can point at inconsistencies in testimony
@Patango
Praise from whom? It certainly wasn't from the left. We knew what kind of filth he was and what kind of vile decisions he would participate in.
Democratic presidents need to start nominating people who are as far to the left as the "four idiots of the apocalypse" are to the right. That hasn't been the case lately.
When left-leaning SC justices make the same kinds of statements, the right wing will become enraged. At that point, maybe we can institute some limitations of this kind of behavior. Until that happens, all of the gain accrues to the right. They have little incentive to curb it.
So when is Justice Roberts going to retire again?
And one of the cases before the court in about white election officials stopping an election where registered black voters appeared to have an upper hand , and would win some seats , when did that ever happen in Mass mr roberts?
Roberts has identified himself as a defensive southerner , who thinks minorities , and the ladies , have too many rights over the white male people , I would be curious to know what his fellow liberal justices think of him now? SAD
You can rest assured he sees the minorities and ladies who are on the ussc , as people who got there positions with the aid of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION , and that they do not even deserve their jobs
well of course they aren't worthy...didn't you know its was just another 'entitlement'?
Can Verrilli correct him in the next go around? Will there be more oral arguments?
John Roberts: Why let facts get in the way of a good gotcha?
To prevent anyone's right to vote, the act should cover ALL states, considering how the rethugs are trying to suppress the vote
when you've already made up your mind, you try to backstop your decision. Clearly Roberts has been fed this information. This is not something he's gone and used "The Google," as Rachel would say. More and more, the right wing cabal of this supreme court are bought and paid for by the likes of the Koch Brothers and their ilk. Balls and Strikes my ass, Chief Justice Roberts. You couldn't call a fair ball and a strike if your life depended on it. What a wonderful legacy, the five conservatives on the court vote to let the South rise again with its Jim Crow laws. And trust. It will happen. It IS happening. This stupid notion that everything has changed in the the South is the smug elitist white male point of view. And if things have improved in the south, isn't that BECAUSE of the Voting Rights Act???? Which is an argument in FAVOR of it, not against it. But Roberts wants to please his masters, so Section 5 will go.
Isn't this, effectively, a straw man argument on the part of Justice Roberts? tsk tsk....being a fancy judge and all.
I'm certainly no SCOTUS scholar, so rather than do the research, I'd like to simply ask this, what could inevitably become a stupid question in hindsight, ...
With the recorded history Chief Justice Roberts has in working for the Nixon Administration on this very issue, (be those tasks as they were), how could he not recuse himself from this decision? There seems to be a slight odor around this to me.
Is it because he is Chief Justice? Does CJs never recuse themselves?
Yes. US Supreme Court justices have recused themselves from cases many times across the history of the Court.
Judges, justices and magistrates are required (or encouraged) under federal law to disqualify themselves from any case in which they may have a conflict of interest. Under 28 USC § 455:
"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
The law cites such issues as personal bias or prejudice, personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, cases in which the judge has previously served as an attorney, advisor, or witness for any of the parties, cases in which the judge has a significant financial interest in the outcome, personal relationships with parties to a case, etc.
Supreme Court Justices are allowed discretion over which cases they hear and which they choose to recuse themselves from, which sometimes leads to tie votes or criticism that a participating justice was biased.
In 2008, four justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Alito), recused themselves from considering a petition for certiorari in Isuzu Motors, Inc., v. Ntsebeza due to investments in some of the companies that were party to the suit. This left the Court without the required quorum to hear the case and resulted in automatic affirmation of the Second Circuit's decision.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito had each disqualified themselves from earlier cases that resulted in tie votes, also leading to affirmation by an equally divided Court.
New Justice Elena Kagan has identified at least eleven potential cases from which she would disqualify herself due to earlier involvement while serving as US Solicitor General. This number pales in comparison to the 75 cases from which Justice Thurgood Marshall disqualified himself.
Some legal scholars have criticized Chief Justice John Marshall's decision not to disqualify himself from the US Supreme Court's seminal case Marbury v. Madison, (1803), despite having played a key role in the incident while serving as Secretary of State under President Adams. It should be noted, however, that the Court would have lacked a quorum if Marshall had recused himself, because two other justices, William Cushing and Alfred Moore, were unable to participate due to illness. (The Reporter of the Court from 1801-1806 noted that Marshall had recused himself from five cases during that period.)
More recently, Justice Antonin Scalia was criticized for not disqualifying himself from Cheney v. US District Court, (2004), despite being a personal friend of Vice-President Dick Cheney. The Sierra Club filed a motion calling upon Justice Scalia to disqualify himself, to which Scalia responded with a 21-page answer defending his decision to hear the case.
The answer stated, in part: "[a] rule that required Members of this Court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling."
Rate This Answer
A justice doesn't recuse himself for working on an issue. He recuses himself for having a personal connection to the actual case. If your suggested rule were in place, it would be impossible for the Court to function. Are we supposed to have justices who have never worked on death penalty cases before?
Justice Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from considering the Affordable Healthcare Act, even though his wife is a paid, registered and outspoken lobbyist and advocate for its repeal, and his repeated appearances at gatherings dedicated to its destruction...
But, you know, IOKIYAR...
He gives me the idea he is only interested in the republicans view on every thing that the republicians do I thought he was there for all the people
Regardless of his decision on Obamacare, Roberts is a member of the treasonous five (the majority in Citizens United.) They should all be arrested and tried for treason.
Using Robert's justification that because voter descrimination is down we no longer need anti descrimination laws is flawed from the getgo. If we use this pattern then if murders show a marked decrease we need to wipe out all laws making murders illegal. Don't these suppose learned idiots realize that voter descrimination is declining BECAUSE of the lwas they want to destroy. It is just amazing that the Republican mindset of ignorance, bigotry and putting the wealthy above all else has infected the supreme court of the land.
re#19, continuing your thought, why do we need the 15th and 19th Amendments? The 15th's two provisions are, by such reasoning of a decline in civil rights violations, obsolete and no longer needed. Those would be 1) the right to vote cannot by abridged by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (applies to women also b/c women weren't even seen as partial humans and subject to the dominant man of the house) and 2)Congress has power to enforce section 1 by appropriate legislation. (which was one of Scalia's points...) And, obviously, women are no longer discriminated against either...long lines, IDs, etc. notwithstanding.
Don't forget... Some women were refused the right to vote because they changed their legal names, having gotten married, and neglected to notify the Registrar...
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has brilliant legal minds and researchers clerking for him. Surely they would have briefed him on such basic matters as voter turnout by race. Disappointing that he would make a factual error like this.
You're assuming that Roberts cares about being accurate and basing his decision on facts. Probably an incorrect assumption in this case.
I'm sure he heard it on Fox News.
That's kind of like actual research.
but that 'assumes' it was in error......
So in addition to "truthiness," we'll need to add "legaliness" to the lexicon.
The funny thing is that, even had Roberts been correct about his "statistic," the extension of his argument would run him headlong into a logical roadblock.
Let's just assume for a second that black voters in Massachusetts DO turn out at a lower rate in relation to whites. The largely white population of MA votes fairly consistently for Democrats. The vast majority of MA state legislators are Dems. All nine House members and both senators are Democrats. Democratic legislators and heads of state do a better job of looking out for their interests. Therefore, we can surmise that the interests of blacks and other minorities are being well served by the extant voting pattern in that state. There is less pressure on minorities to vote in order to have their voices heard in political venues.
In the South and other "red" states, or in states where the representation is mixed (as it is in swing states), that's not true. There is much greater need for blacks and other minorities to participate in elections, since the party in control often attacks their interests. These are the areas where the VRA is most at issue, and where its continuation is of greatest importance. Given the shenanigans we've seen over the past few years in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, a better argument can be made for EXTENDING the VRA.
Tsk, tsk... Thinking logically? Who do you think they are, the Supreme Court?...
Oh... yeah... well...
Does anybody know how long after the oral arguments do the justices vote. For example will they read that Justice Roberts was wrong before they vote or after?
just curious how long they debate amongst themselves behind closed doors.
well lets hope that he will make another call like the ACA call.
we all though he go the wrong way, but surprise us. maybe he is still thinking about the legacy his court will be remembered by.
Roberts will vote to do away with the VRA. So will Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. We have to hope that Justice Kennedy will demonstrate common sense, good judgment, and concern for the future of the nation.
Much of the spectacle going on here is kabuki theater, with the four justices on each side attempting to sway Kennedy's decision.
Kennedy is getting crazier and crazier. Power is corrupting and Kennedy has let the power he has when he's one of the 5 injustices go to his head. I have no hope Kennedy will save the VRA.
This has been my problem with this whole issue. The debate even at the Supreme Court level has been absurd and completely illogical. From this to Antonin Scalia's offensive "racial entitlement" phrase, the conservative side of this has been outrageously ill-informed on this. Even if Roberts was right about African American turnout in Massachusetts, that's not the point.
The purpose of this isn't to foster African American turnout, it was to prevent minorities from being disenfranchised in the areas most likely to disenfranchise them. Are we supposed to ignore history, and the fact that racism still has a strong foothold in certain states within this union? The fact that they'd ignore historical AND current minority relations while using a factoid that's not even relevant shows where they are on this issue -- minds made up regardless of facts and flailing for anything to support their predetermined notions. We should be able to expect more from the Supreme Court.
I think that the presence of firefighters to stop widespread forest fires has been a great success.
Thus, we don't need firefighters any longer.