大象传媒

In every election cycle, urging people to vote is usually accompanied by the standard argument that 鈥渆very vote counts.鈥�

Technically, that鈥檚 true. before. But one recurring mantra during the run-up to the 2020 election was, 鈥�.鈥� The message was that President Trump and the Republican Party were going to cheat, and the only way to win was to have a victory so overwhelming that the cheating wouldn鈥檛 work.

That鈥檚 a fairly pessimistic take: We can鈥檛 stop the cheating; we can only adapt to it.

But it was also the right take. Republicans pulled out all sorts of dirty tricks to try to keep Trump from losing, ranging from the commonplace 鈥溾�� to the unanticipated 鈥� during the biggest mail-in election in history.鈥� And then Trump instigated a failed coup attempt against Congress to halt the certification of Biden鈥檚 victory.

Those numbers鈥攚hich were eventually certified鈥攎atter. In 2016, Trump lost the national popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but he still : 107,000 people in three states determined the outcome of the Electoral College vote.

What is less often acknowledged is that the than the 2016 race. Despite Joe Biden winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes, just 42,918 votes in three states鈥�20,682 in Wisconsin, 11,779 in Georgia, and 10,457 in Arizona鈥攚ere all that kept Trump from a second term.

If one person鈥檚 rights are violated on account of their race, it鈥檚 still discrimination.

With so much hanging on such small numbers, it鈥檚 particularly galling to hear a Supreme Court justice argue that small numbers don鈥檛 matter. Especially during a case that guts voting rights at a time when Republican officials in many states are rushing to restrict the franchise, based on the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen.

On July 1, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in to reinstate two Arizona laws that would disproportionately affect low-income voters and people of color. One law requires officials to throw out ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Another bars most people and groups from collecting ballots to drop off at polling places. An appeals court had tossed them out on the grounds that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any law that discriminates because of race, whether that result is intentional or not.

The Supreme Court overturned the case not because the Arizona laws were found not to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but because the numbers affected were small.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion: 鈥淏ut the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. The size of any disparity matters.鈥� 

Alito鈥檚 argument, which was joined by the other five conservative members including Chief Justice John Roberts, is dead wrong. Any disparity of impact means the system is not equally open, that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. Rights are not conditional on having enough people to form a lobbying firm. If one person鈥檚 rights are violated on account of their race, it鈥檚 still discrimination.

But that鈥檚 just part and parcel of the Roberts court鈥檚 ongoing attempt to undermine voting rights in this country, starting with in 2013 by removing the 鈥減re-clearance鈥� mandate. That required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to receive approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before they could change their laws.

As far as crises of democracy go, this should be a hair-on-fire moment.

Once Shelby County was handed down, states rushed to enact new restrictions on voting, beginning with Texas, whose attorney general (and now governor) Greg Abbott didn鈥檛 even wait until the end of the day before announcing the state would by the Obama administration during a pre-clearance hearing.

New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently wrote a good piece about how he鈥檚 . Instead of holding the vote up as an article of faith in a democracy鈥攖hat sets expectations too high, and actually undermines faith when voting doesn鈥檛 work the way it鈥檚 supposed to鈥擝low is now assuming that voting 飞辞苍鈥檛 work entirely the way it鈥檚 supposed to, and therefore is a right that needs to be fought for and won again and again.

That鈥檚 certainly a safer assumption when one of the two major U.S. parties is actively working鈥攊n full view鈥攖o undermine voting rights in several states. That鈥檚 not just limited to is widely seen as election denialism tinged with conspiracy theories and outright incompetence.

All over the country, Republican-controlled states have been rushing to enact more voter restrictions. As of May 14, have been passed that add restrictions to voting, more than in any previous year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. On July 7, of the Legislature to consider a slate of Republican priorities, including tightening voting restrictions in the state.

There鈥檚 a lot of grassroots energy still out there calling for big structural changes that鈥檚 being left untapped.

Add that to institutions such as the Electoral College or the Senate, which both artificially inflate the power of more rural conservative states, and being wary of the limits of the power of voting in America is not just warranted, but a necessary reality check.

We鈥檙e coming up on the 2022 midterms, when, according to conventional wisdom, the ruling party usually loses seats in Congress. That ought to be a nerve-wracking situation for Democrats, who could easily lose one or both chambers with just a few votes going the other way.

But the real action is happening at the state level, with potentially farther-reaching consequences: will be held for seats in 88 of the country鈥檚 99 state legislative bodies, plus , including states such as Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Republicans are also preparing to cement their power by redrawing Congressional and legislative districts to comport with the new Census, which is 鈥攖he only question is how many.

The GOP will be able to influence redistricting for more than twice as many electoral districts as Democrats in this cycle. The party right now controls 29 state legislatures, and in 23 of those states, they also have the governorship. (And examples in , , and most recently Arizona demonstrate Republican legislatures are ready and willing to if they are occupied by Democrats.)

Those Republican wins will be locked in for the next decade, thanks to another Supreme Court ruling (2019鈥檚 Rucho v. Common Cause) which ruled that is fine. The message from Rucho was that if you win the statehouse, it鈥檚 perfectly acceptable to redraw the maps to make it harder for anyone to challenge your power.

As far as crises of democracy go, this should be a hair-on-fire moment. At the national level, however, the Biden administration and .

Legislation is being held up in the U.S. Senate thanks to Democrats of West Virginia and of Arizona, who have refused to rewrite the Senate鈥檚 rules to allow legislation to protect voting rights to pass on a majority vote. Meanwhile, with Biden鈥檚 agenda threatened by , for Independence Day.

Maybe the Democrats have a plan to dominate 2022, but I鈥檓 not convinced. Too often, it seems, Democratic politics focus on the numbers only enough to eke out a win.

But that鈥檚 a cautious strategy for protecting incumbents, not how you get big structural change. It鈥檚 notable that much of the energy behind Georgia Democrats鈥� victory last fall came not from the party establishment, but from grassroots organizations like the New Georgia Project and Fair Fight.

And right now, with an unabated anti-democracy movement still gaining support from Trump and the Republican Party, flat-out opposition from Republicans for any accountability to the Jan. 6 insurrection, and a Supreme Court actively hostile to voting rights even when they鈥檙e under threat, being cautious isn鈥檛 going to cut it.

There鈥檚 a lot of grassroots energy still out there calling for big structural changes that鈥檚 being left untapped. The battle lines are being drawn this year for the next decade, and if the Democratic Party doesn鈥檛 rise to the defense of democracy, it鈥檚 hard to see why they should expect progressive support. Every vote may not count the same any more, but those votes do add up. But voting in numbers too big to manipulate can only happen if everyone鈥檚 on board (and able to access the ballot box), and I鈥檓 still waiting for the Democratic Party to make that its priority.