This week at Democracy Docket: The Supreme Court boosted Trump’s voter suppression. Legacy media shrugged

By Zachary Roth

Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

You’ve likely seen the news: The U.S. Supreme Court Friday greenlit a flawed Trump administration database for purging voters from the rolls. 

Almost as troubling: Plenty of major news outlets were eager to downplay the decision’s importance, assuring readers that the impact on voters would likely be minor.

“Supreme Court Ruling Could Have Limited Impact on Voter Screening in Midterms,” the New York Times rushed to tell readers. The Washington Post, too, reported that the “immediate effects of the ruling may be narrow.” 

Sure, things may turn out that way. In the 90 days before a federal election, states are barred from conducting systematic voter purges, meaning they can legally only use the Trump administration database for individualized removals. That crucial safeguard, part of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), could prevent widespread disenfranchisement.

That’s why, in her impassioned and cogent dissent, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the decision “will likely have minimal short-term impact.” Many election experts agreed. Perhaps you can’t fault the legacy media for being convinced.

But here’s the thing: No one can say for certain how this will play out. As we explained in our own much more skeptical coverage, it’s a good bet that some red states — especially those with close statewide races — will work with the Trump administration to blur the line between systematic and individualized removals, seeking to purge as aggressively as they can get away with. As we reported, the Department of Justice already has been arguing in court to weaken the NVRA’s purge protection.

More fundamentally: At Democracy Docket, we think that when the courts empower this administration’s suppression schemes rather than protecting voters, it’s a big deal. And we also think that when eligible voters are put at risk of disenfranchisement just because they’re naturalized citizens — remember, that’s who’s likely to be most affected here — that’s a big deal, too. Even if the number isn’t as large as it might have been had this ruling come earlier.

At perhaps the most basic level of all: We’re facing an authoritarian president who will stop at nothing to suppress voting, undermine a fair election, and consolidate his own power. In that environment, it’s crucial that pro-democracy voters are alert to the danger, and avoid complacency at all costs. 

That doesn’t mean you should panic. For all its determination to crack down on voting, the Trump administration isn’t going to be able to stop you from casting your ballot. And your vote is going to count, too. So do it proudly and confidently.

But at Democracy Docket, it’s rarely going to be our role to explain why, actually, you shouldn’t worry. There are already plenty of news outlets, deeply invested for their own reasons in pretending we live in normal times, that have got you covered there.

For us, now isn’t the time to let our guard down. A powerful political movement controls the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, and its central objective is ending fair elections. As long as that’s true, at Democracy Docket we’re going to keep sounding the alarm.

We know it’s what our supporters expect of us.

Here, in chronological order, are some of the most important stories we published during a huge week of news:

How rogue counties could help Trump and throw the midterms into chaos — By Yunior Rivas

DHS created a ‘law enforcement voter integrity’ checklist, new filing reveals. Dems want to see it — By Jacob Knutson

North Carolina mail ballot restrictions will cause ‘arbitrary disenfranchisement,’ new lawsuit warns — By Natalie Hausmann

‘Hypocritical’: RNC pushes mail voting for its supporters while attacking it in court — By Ajani Stella

Trump administration will use passport data for voter citizenship checks, court filing reveals — By Jim Saksa

Exclusive: EAC commissioner communicated with Cleta Mitchell’s group on proof of citizenship, emails show — By Matt Cohen

Appeals court greenlights Ohio GOP’s voter registration proof of citizenship requirement for midterms — By Jacob Knutson

Democrats sue Trump admin to keep armed agents from polls during midterms — By Jim Saksa

California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to return seized ballots, affirms state’s power over local law enforcement — By Yunior Rivas

Supreme Court revives use of flawed immigration database for voter purges — By Jacob Knutson

The Supreme Court is letting Trump use a faulty database for purges. What it could mean for voters — By Alexandra Hutzler

In SAVE ruling, Supreme Court signals path to weaken key protection against last-minute purges — By Yunior Rivas

In a win for voters, Supreme Court blocks Missouri’s gerrymandered map for midterms — By Jen Rice