Since its inception, the Roberts Court has acquiesced in—and at times even abetted—the attempts of many states to make it harder for Americans to vote. Illustrative is a 2018 decision, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Court rejected a statutory challenge to a state’s expansive purges of voting lists. In Husted the Court dismissed the threat of voter suppression as simply not “relevant” to the case before it. By declining to look beyond states’ unsupported explanations for voter-suppressive practices, the Court is leaving the right to vote to the vagaries of the political process. It didn’t have to be this way. For half a century, the Court has recognized a constitutional right to vote. This Article sketches a claim that precedent might allow, if only the Court were willing to reconsider its trajectory and acknowledge the reality and constitutional implications of intentional voter suppression. More specifically, we turn to the neglected Equal Protection framework developed by the Supreme Court in the voting-rights context to argue that a state acts unconstitutionally when it acts with the intent of making it less likely that an eligible voter’s ballot will be cast or counted. If accepted, this straightforward principle would require judicial scrutiny of election practices to move beyond talking points, to allow genuine adversarial testing of states’ justifications for restrictive measures.

中文翻译：

---

房间里的大象：故意压制选民

自成立以来，罗伯茨法院默许——有时甚至是怂恿——许多州试图让美国人更难投票。示例是 2018 年 Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute 的判决，其中法院驳回了对一个州广泛清除投票名单的法定挑战。在 Husted 案中，法院驳回了压制选民的威胁，认为这与它面前的案件根本不“相关”。法院拒绝超越各州对压制选民的做法未经支持的解释，将投票权留给了变幻莫测的政治进程。不必如此。半个世纪以来，法院承认宪法赋予的投票权。本文概述了先例可能允许的主张，如果法院愿意重新考虑其轨迹并承认故意压制选民的现实和宪法影响。更具体地说，我们转向最高法院在投票权背景下制定的被忽视的平等保护框架，以争辩说，当一个州的行为旨在降低合格选民的选票被投票或计票的可能性时，它的行为是违宪的。 . 如果被接受，这一直截了当的原则将需要对选举实践进行司法审查，以超越谈话要点，允许对各州采取限制措施的理由进行真正的对抗性测试。我们转向最高法院在投票权背景下制定的被忽视的平等保护框架，以争辩说，当一个国家的行为旨在降低合格选民的选票被投票或计票的可能性时，它的行为是违宪的。如果被接受，这一直截了当的原则将需要对选举实践进行司法审查，以超越谈话要点，允许对各州采取限制措施的理由进行真正的对抗性测试。我们转向最高法院在投票权背景下制定的被忽视的平等保护框架，以争辩说，当一个国家的行为旨在降低合格选民的选票被投票或计票的可能性时，它的行为是违宪的。如果被接受，这一直截了当的原则将需要对选举实践进行司法审查，以超越谈话要点，允许对各州采取限制措施的理由进行真正的对抗性测试。