Greer | After the SCOTUS ruling, a bigger question: Where’s the competition?

On Wednesday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled to eliminate the second racially gerrymandered district in Louisiana because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district.

According to the VRA, Louisiana was granted one majority-minority district. Many in media, of all types, focused on the idea the voters of Louisiana, and possibly other states, could be adversely impacted by SCOTUS’ ruling. 

This SCOTUS ruling, along with mid-decade redistricting, has been the catalyst of this year’s conversations regarding representation and equal protection guaranteed under the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and suppression or oppression of the voting. Much of the conversation has been centered around victimization or victorship, depending on which side of the argument you are comfortable with.

At the same time, we all have an opportunity to have a deeper conversation and to think beyond binary ideas.

Perhaps we can consider this ruling as an opportunity to refocus on the purpose of an election — to be competitive, talk with voters and earn every vote.

As we look across the spectrum in Georgia and other states, one can argue the majority political party in the state tends to be aggressive with messaging, have more money, and tends to run unopposed in many state-level races.

Simultaneously, the minority political party tends to run candidates timidly, does not raise the money to be competitive and does not help candidates in smaller races to create a competitive advantage as part of a long-term strategy. The minority political party tends to operate from crisis to crisis while the majority political party appears to run with a long-term strategy in mind and action.

In essence, the political parties become accustomed to their place in the state’s politics and move accordingly, thus creating political stagnation.

The political parties’ posture then reinforces the elected officials’ posture. In non-competitive races, incumbents enjoy the ease of primaries and general elections.  Some ‘safe’ incumbents treat their elected seat as a legacy seat where primary opponents are discouraged by the party or others in the party and a general election opponent loses by well into the double digits.

We see Real Clear Politics Poll Average for Congressional Job Approval as 71% disapproval. How can Congress have an average approval of 29% and about 90% of incumbents were reelected in 2024?

These two items are in disagreement.

In Georgia, we face this same issue regarding incumbency. 

Out of the 14 Congressional seats, we have nine “safe” Republican seats and five “safe” Democratic seats. Unless there is an open seat, it is “safe” to conclude these incumbents will neither have a competitive primary opponent nor a competitive general election opponent.

Similarly, the General Assembly Democrats had a net gain of two seats, flipping them from Republican 2024, yet the vast majority of the General Assembly tends to remain the same where Republicans maintain a comfortable lead over the Democratic lawmakers. 

Perhaps, having competitive races will revitalize our trust in our republic and the democratic process. Competitive races mean those running for office and incumbents will proactively visit with communities.

These races create opportunities for communities who have not had access to or chatted directly with anyone running for or currently in office to have the opportunity to express their concerns with someone vying to represent them.

Competitive races mean civics are on display because candidates discuss policy matters rather than getting away with only talking to their political base.

Candidates will then talk about what is happening at their level of government. Candidates and incumbents will educate the electorate about the current state of affairs and the importance that the people stay engaged. 

Competitive races also mean the people can be mobilized to question candidates and vote. These races allow voters to vet their potential representatives – creating more engagement on substance rather than issues that divide our district, state, and country.

Further, competitive races could mean that those registered voters, who are inactive, may find a reason to become an active voter. 

Simply, if we like competition for business, why are we opposed to competition for the people who represent us?

We are in a “which came first … the chicken or the egg” situation. Do these laws and rulings create a lack of civic participation or does the lack of civic participation allow for such people to be elected who create such laws or rulings?

In either case, we have much more to do to encourage more people, especially 18-29 year olds and irregular voters. Irregular voters are those who do not consistently participate in elections. These voters are generally those who vote in mid-terms and presidential elections, yet not in runoff, special or local elections.

All of these voters are critical for a healthy and functioning democracy. 

So how do we think about the ruling in a productive way, especially if we are interested in increasing voter participation? We can discuss what we can do within the law, provide proactive information, and discuss the importance of each office.

Often with news such as the SCOTUS’ ruling, we tend to focus on the negative or adverse impact rather than the pathway forward that is noted in the ruling or law.  Our conversations can be both and — yes, here is the ruling or law and here is how we can move forward.

We experienced an impact after SB 202 regarding changing in the voting laws in Georgia. Much of the discussion around SB 202 focused on what voters could not do rather than what voters can do.

For example, Georgia has three weeks of early voting anywhere in your county, weekend voting, and voting on some college campuses. Many of these items and others were not discussed with the vigor those who are against the law. Therefore, Georgia was viewed as an anti-voting or discriminatory state as opposed to other states that have less days of early voting or additional restrictions.

And in this instance, the conversation could also include the importance of the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and Senate) and that the legislative branch makes the law. Therefore, was the electorate ready to vote out any of the legislators who voted for the unpopular law?

The Declaration of Independence notes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

While I do not recommend abolishing our current form of government, the ability to ensure our government is meeting the needs of the governed and to “institute new government” by voting in new officials is a way to ensure our government is working on behalf of the masses.

We have the ability to “institute new government” right now.

Georgia is in the middle of primary early voting and will have the ability to elect an entirely new government at the state level as well as all 14 Congressional members and one U.S. senator in November. 

The power is in our collective hands.

Every vote and election matter.

Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in Political Science and teaches public policy.  She was recently featured in an ad for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Geoff Duncan.