The strongly divided reactions to Roe’s overthrow against Wade continue to lead to both protest and praise at levels that political experts are supposed to generate greater attention from voters about state and local races.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision puts abortion policy in the hands of state lawmakers, whose races for legislative seats traditionally receive less attention from voters than federal offices like the U.S. Congress or the White House.
But political scientists at Washington State University say voters ’general awareness of state legislative races could now push public interest into unexplored territory.
“In the past, you haven’t really seen campaigns for state parliaments or governors discussing the abortion issue very often, but you’ll probably see a lot more of that now,” said Cornell Clayton, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute. for Public Policy and Public Service at WSU. “In fact, I would expect to see it become a central issue in almost every mid-term campaign because now states will set abortion policies and it is very important who is your governor and who are the members of your state parliament.”
Clayton, a frequent political commentator whose work on judicial policy has twice received the American Judicature Award from the American Political Science Association, said the issue of abortion has moved before and into the center of political campaigns here in the Pacific Northwest. Washington U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and other Democrats are already overseeing television additions on protecting women’s right to make their own reproductive health choices.
“Democrats have really struggled to find a campaign theme in the medium term, largely because of concerns about the economy and inflation,” Clayton said. “Now, the Court’s explosive decisions overturning abortion rights and in other key areas such as gun control, climate change and the separation of church and state have given them an issue. The Court itself will be the main campaign theme of Democrats for at least the next several election cycles. “
The Supreme Court’s move in a decidedly conservative direction did not surprise Clayton and other experts studying the court. What it did was how quickly the new Conservative majority wanted to change decades of fixed jurisprudence.
Going forward, Clayton said he expects the high court’s next priority will be to overturn affirmative action and place even more restrictions on federal regulatory powers.
“I would fully expect the Conservative majority to overturn past decisions involving affirmative action in the coming period, preventing public institutions such as universities from using race, ethnicity or gender in recognition policies and other programs in the future,” Clayton said.
Michael Salamone, a professor of political science at WSU, recently explained in an article written by the Associated Press that public support for Supreme Court decisions can easily change on a case-by-case basis. But a general belief in the central role of the court in American democracy has tended to be historically resilient. Whether that support will suffer because of the Roe decision as well as other recent decisions remains to be seen.
“Just based on the amount of rhetoric and the high-profile nature of so many of these decisions, I wonder if we might have reached our limit to that resistance,” Salamone told The Associated Press.
Although investigations show that the majority of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s abortion verdict, Clayton said the current composition of the court is likely to remain in place for some time.
Five of the current six Republicans on the court are under the age of 70. The only one who is considering retirement in the foreseeable future is Judge Clarence Thomas.
“Because conservative judges now seem determined to undo decades of Constitutional law covering a highly contentious political terrain, I think you will see progressives and Democrats increase their demands for institutional reforms of the court,” Clayton said.
Similar to how Franklin Roosevelt dealt with a court that obstructs the New Delhi in the 1930s, Clayton predicts that growing numbers of Democrats will take the position that there must be institutional reforms at the Supreme Court.
“I doubt they will expand the size of the court, but they might try. But I think you will certainly see arguments for time limits or limits on the jurisdiction of the court. Many of those reforms can be accomplished by congressional statute and you don’t have to change the Constitution, ”Clayton said.“ There’s nothing in the Constitution that says judges must be appointed for life, that their jurisdiction covers any kind of case, or that the court must have nine judges. In fact, the size of the court was changed by Congress at least six times before it was set at nine judges in 1869. So, I think you will see those kinds of reform proposals increasingly accepted by Democrats. “
