I was a long time Bernie Sanders supporter. I still am. As an attorney and Vietnam veteran I even served as a Senior Adviser to Vets for Bernie during his 2016 campaign. I also supported Sen. Sanders during the 2020 primaries. That was then. This is 2022.
President Biden was not engaging in hyperbole when he recently warned the nation that “democracy will be on the ballot” this November.
I recently underscored his message with my coverage of the amicus brief to SCOTUS from all 50 State Supreme Court Chief Justices warning in no uncertain terms against the dangers of the “fringe”, so-called “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory, soon to be decided by the High Court. The case, Moore v. Harper, was brought to the Court via North Carolina Republicans seeking to override their own state Supreme Court regarding partisan gerrymandering. The theory they are using to do so echoes the radical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause as advanced by disgraced former law professor, John Eastman, during his attempt to help Donald Trump steal the 2020 Presidential election.
Irrespective of whether it comes by way of a violent insurrection or via judicial fiat handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court’s “radicals in robes“, American democracy may soon be all but lost absent a massive turnout for the midterms by everyone who desires to save it.
If a SCOTUS majority embraces the ISL theory, it could lead to a circumstance where MAGA Republican State legislatures can not only rig all future U.S. House elections via partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression and intimidation but also present what the Brennan Center described as a “nightmare scenario” in which a partisan, gerrymandered State legislature “would invoke [the ISL] as a pretext to refuse to certify the results of a presidential election and instead select its own slate of electors.” In other words, under the ISL theory a partisan gerrymandered State Legislature, and not the People, would hold the ultimate power to “elect” all future Presidents. Neither gubernatorial vetoes, nor state voters nor state Constitutions nor state Supreme Courts would be able to overrule them.
Where MAGA Republicans proponents of the ISL theory offer an absurd bastardization of the Constitution’s Elections Clause as a ticket to undermine democracy, most legal scholars regard the same Clause as providing a means by which democracy can be saved…
Back in March of 2021, I observed when covering Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock’s eloquent plea to end the filibuster in order to adopt critical federal voting rights legislation:
Warnock’s eloquence fell upon the deaf ears of two ethically challenged Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ). Those two, together with all 50 Senate Republicans, voted to block a limited filibuster that would have allowed passage of legislation to protect voting rights and democracy itself.
In the following months, it looked like extreme partisan gerrymandering had all but doomed Democrats’ prospect to retain a majority in the U.S. House. But that was before the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly-empowered far-right majority overturned Roe v. Wade. The Court’s direct assault on privacy rights and reproductive freedoms triggered a “jaw-dropping” spike in voter registration by young female Democrats as seen in the massive backlash in deep “red” Kansas, where a proposed state constitutional amendment to allow the banning of abortion rights was rejected by a nearly two-to-one voter landslide.
Given the unprecedented threat posed by the ISL theory, it is not overstatement to argue that democracy itself hangs in the balance of Democrats’ ability to retain control of the House and the addition of at least two Democrats in the U.S. Senate this year. That must be followed by reform of the Senate filibuster to allow simple majority passage of a new For the People Act prior to the 2024 Presidential election. Additionally, there must then be a majority-supported expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 Justices. That expansion is needed to prevent the “nightmare scenario” in which MAGA Republican state legislators in battleground states utilize the ISL theory to overrule the will of their voters in a Presidential election. SCOTUS expansion could also result in the overturning of several recent anti-democracy decisions, like the Court’s “infamous” Citizens United decision, which treated corporations as people and money as “free speech”.
Scholars have recognized that both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate are structurally undemocratic institutions. Ideal reforms — replacing the electoral college with a popular vote for President and linking the number of a State’s senators to the size of its population — could not be achieved absent amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, a Democratic-controlled Congress could reduce some of the U.S. Senate’s undemocratic features.
A new +2 Democratic Senate majority, if it can be gained in November, should allow the filibuster to be ended for all issues. This would open the door to the full array of Biden’s agenda, as embodied in the original Build Back Better Act, the President’s plan to raise the minimum wage and a bevy of other progressive issues that Republicans simultaneously blocked as they disingenuously complained about a lack of Democratic accomplishments.
If the filibuster is eliminated entirely, voters, in 2024, will be presented with a clear picture of the difference between Democratic and Republican agendas, not to mention their respective impacts upon their daily lives. For example, consider the lasting impact of a permanent expansion of the previously temporary child tax credit which, while in effect, lifted 3.7 million children out of poverty. By embracing “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” a new Democratic-controlled Congress can enhance the health of both our citizenry and our democracy.
A Democratic-controlled Congress should also approve statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. That would add two seats in the House, four more U.S. Senators, as well as each jurisdiction’s much-deserved representation in Congress for the U.S. citizens residing within those two federal enclaves. It would also add a minimum of six electoral votes in the next Presidential election. It can all be done — if the filibuster rule is eliminated — with simple majority passage in both chambers and the signature of the President.
But none of this will be possible absent a massive turnout on or before November 8 by those who want American democracy itself to survive. Nothing less than democracy’s survival is now at stake.
UPDATE 10/25/2022: Describing MAGA controlled Republicans as a “dictatorship party” and “the most dangerous political movement since the Civil War”…, former Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader arrived at the same conclusion as the author. We the People must vote “blue” in ’22 to save democracy.
Ernest A. Canning is a retired attorney, author, and Vietnam Veteran (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). He previously served as a Senior Advisor to Veterans For Bernie. Canning has been a member of the California state bar since 1977. In addition to a juris doctor, he has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science. Follow him on twitter: @cann4ing
























Well said, Mr. Canning.
Hear! Hear!!
Question for Mr. Canning:
We hear so often in the media and from Democrats about protecting democracy in this election.
But aren’t we also protecting the idea of representative government as well?
Aren’t we also protecting our republic?
Can a truly representative republic exist without some democracy (i.e. the right to vote and the freedom to exoress political ideas publically)?
In the reverse, I don’t see how a democracy could exist without honestly representative government.
Can a democracy even exist without being at least somnething like a republic?
Can a real republic exist without democratic rights of voting and free expression?
I have difficulty separating these 2 things (democracy and republic).
It just seems to me they belong together.
But what do I know?
Thoughtful question, DonL #2.
I’d recommend reading ‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous–And Wrong–Argument.
While there are undemocratic features that emerged from the Constitutional Convention — the electoral college, U.S. Senators appointed by State legislatures — the framers were clear on the fact that, in a republic, the People are sovereign. Hence, the Constitution begins with “We the People”.
We can strengthen the republic by strengthening democracy. In 1913 that occurred with passage of the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct election of U.S. Senators. Other means are set forth in the body of this article.
One thing is clear. If We the People lose the ability to determine our future via voter suppression, intimidation, partisan gerrymandering and the Supreme Court’s adoption of the Independent State Legislature theory, the U.S. will lose its status as a republican form of government. That form of government will be replaced by oligarchic fascism.
The ABA sayeth:
(The Preamble- Conversation Starters).
Gentlemen. start your engines.
‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Amen, Amen, Amen!
Our election office in Salt Lake City is being threatened by a Trumper so I’ve knocked on 567 doors. I couldn’t let this happen without trying.
Thanks for the great response, Mr. Canning, and any others who might have been responding to me, at least in part.
Just 1 more observation of mine on that whole “Republic vs Democracy” talking point long pushed by GOP/conservatives.
I think for a sizeable slice of Americans, the least-educated and least sophisticated politically, The word “Republic” implies *Republican PARTY*, while “Democracy” implies *Democratic PARTY*.
So when GOP leaders praise”Republican form of gov’t” over “Democracy”, these politically-challenged folks think they are talking about Republicans vs Democrats.
I really believe there are at least some Americans who are that dumb.