Despite the alarm, the judge's ruling on Friday was a technical ruling on the issue of legal status, and the real action is still in the Mississippi case. In addition, the New York City Council will allow 800,000 non-citizens to vote in local elections as long as they have lived for 30 days. But what does the state constitution say?
The transcript is prepared by the transcription service agency. This version may not be the final form and may be updated.
Speaker 1: From the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.
Kyle Peterson: The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Texas abortion law because the New York City Council passed a bill to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Welcome, this is Kyle Peterson of The Wall Street Journal. Today, my colleagues and columnists Kim Strassel and Bill McGurn joined us. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in a case involving SB8, a Texas law that generally prohibits abortion after about six weeks. So Kim, maybe the place to start here is just a reminder of how this law works and why abortion advocates are difficult to challenge.
Kim Strassel: The reason why it is so difficult is that it was written deliberately, making the challenge impossible or very difficult. What it is doing here is that it basically allows private citizens to file civil suits and prosecute anyone who "assisted or abetted an abortion in six weeks." This is a very strange way of doing things. Almost all other laws entrust the enforcement of regulations to public officials, and then you sue these public officials to try to order them or repeal the law. In this case, it raises a very strange question, that is, can the Federal Court even intervene here, because is anyone qualified to sue anything? This is the content of the oral argument that the Supreme Court heard and the current content of the decision.
Kyle Peterson: The Supreme Court’s decision is a bit complicated. The question Kim raises is who you can sue to defend your rights before the law is enforced. So abortion advocates tried to sue a man named Mark Dixon who was an activist who thought they would file a lawsuit under SB8, and then he said he had no intention of doing so. So when I read this ruling, nine justices were saying that you can’t just preemptively sue random private individuals to enforce your rights. Abortion advocates also said, let us try to sue state judges and prevent them from hearing or accepting SB8 cases. Again, I think the nine judges said that you cannot sue such state judges in federal courts. Part of the problem is that the federal courts exist to decide cases and disputes, so there may be disputes between abortion providers and abortions. Anti-abortion advocates, but state judges or state judges are not a party to this controversy. He should be a neutral official. So, we have some disagreements in the Supreme Court’s decision on whether state clerk and court clerk can be prosecuted and blocking the filing of any of these cases. These cases did not receive the support of the majority of judges. Chief Justice John Roberts said so. “The court clerk who issued the subpoenas and recorded the SB8 case was inevitably included in the plan to enforce the SB8 unconstitutional provisions.” But most of the bills written by Judge Neil Gossack, one of the points it puts forward is where you draw Delimitation line? Where are you stopping? If we were to open the case against state clerks to the federal courts, we don’t know what the outcome will be.
Bill McGahn: I think what you got from Kyle is that this really isn't about an abortion decision. This is a decision about positions, judicial procedures, etc., which is why it is a bit puzzling, because even among judges, they draw different boundaries. Gorsuch will allow litigation against what it is, state licensing officials, etc. I mean, in general, I think this is a reasonable decision. It did not break new ground. I think that when the judge and Dobbs and others make a decision, it will be largely meaningless. As a person who supports life, this is not what the law wants. I think the American people should abide by these laws, such as things that people can understand, not the inner workings of the process. But what I want to say is that the reason we made this law is just a thing that Scalia is called an invalid machine for temporary abortion. Every time the federal court imposes state restrictions on abortion, no matter how reasonable it is, it will try to seize the opportunity. So the Texans designed one to solve this problem. They are obviously well designed. I don't think it will last forever, but they have walked a few steps here and haven't confused everyone. I think this is a lot of hustle and bustle. I think that in the end, this will be just a footnote to a larger abortion lawsuit. It is not about abortion to a large extent, but who makes the decision, where these things should be decided, where should they be decided, etc.
Kyle Peterson: As Bill pointed out, most people agree that they can sue the state regulatory agency, the State Licensed Medical Licensing Board, on the grounds that the Texas Medical Board has the right to deal with violations of Texas health and safety. Doctors take disciplinary actions. Code and SB8 are part of the statutory code. Therefore, certain parties can be sued and federal lawsuits can be initiated. But regarding standing doctrine and clerks, I think this is particularly interesting. Gorsuch’s answer to the Chief Justice was, “Where do you stop?” But this can also cause all kinds of confusing questions, because if the clerks are to be prevented from filing a case involving SB8, he said, “I am dismissing these Before litigation, what kind of investigations must the state courts apply to meet due process? Must they hire independent legal counsel for their clerks? So those, those independent legal counsel will be the next person to be sued? Kim, I mean the basic point of most people here is that we have a federal court that has a position principle that stipulates who can sue and who cannot sue. Most people say that basically we will not confuse this principle and try to create some Specific SB8.
Kingstrassell: Yes. Given this very complicated law, this may be the best answer. Most importantly, litigation will be able to proceed against certain state officials. As you said, the Supreme Court managed to get rid of this without confusing a bunch of old-fashioned principles. By the way, this has to do with the truly malicious nature of the law, and in a broader context, conservatives should not like the law, even if they support life, because it’s not just the complexity of proceduralism, it might be It destroys or confuses a bunch of very important principles, but it can be used by anyone. I mean, if you can do something for abortion in Texas, why doesn't New York enact a law that will sue any gun owner on behalf of private citizens? Why not enact a law that empowers people to hunt down anyone they accuse of engaging in hate speech? I think the most important thing is that whether you agree with all the different distinctions or not, it is a very divided opinion on who can be sued. One of the most powerful lines in the entire article was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who just pointed out it bluntly. He said that the purpose and effect of Texas law "has always been to invalidate the court's decision." He added, “The nature of the violation of federal rights is irrelevant. The role of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system are in danger.” Basically, what he meant was, look, this thing was written to make us confused, We need to keep this in mind when writing these opinions.
Kyle Peterson: Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the same point in her dissent. I will read a word from her. She said: “By canceling lawsuits against state court officials and state attorneys general, the court effectively invited other states to improve the SB8 model for abolishing federal rights.” Bill, I understand the point she made there, but in response to this concern In the majority opinion, Judge Gorsuch also stated that there are 14 other state court challenges against SB8 that are still pending. There will be these state-licensed officials who can be prosecuted, so these abortion providers have other ways to uphold their constitutional rights.
Bill McGahn: Yes, I think they will eventually. Due to the way the law is made, it may take some time to get there, but I think it will happen sooner or later. I don't think this law has a long life cycle. Again, none of this may have practical meaning, depending on the court's judgment on Dobbs. There is more sensationalism about this. I agree with Kim. I think the main thing we don't like to see in the law is that people use novel theories and wander around. I mean, doing this kind of thing and enacting the law in this way is a very bad precedent, because it can be used for a lot of hoaxes, various measures, around. So I can't see this world for too long. I think they are very smart in designing it to overcome the first few obstacles.
Kyle Peterson: The last thought on this, especially the role of this Mississippi case, which is called Dobbs, is declining. I mean Kim, the whole reason Texas was forced to make this weird law and write it in this weird way is because the vast majority of Texas lawmakers want to impose some restrictions on abortion. And they failed to do so because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So the conservative argument against these is that it takes abortion from the hands of the states, the political process it belongs to excludes it from these powerful majority, and this Texas law is yours. Strange results.
Kinstrassell: Of course, these are the things that the judges were thrown back when they heard about Dobbs recently. The reality is that Roy and his following of Casey have plunged the country into a culture war for decades because it created a complete cloth, which is a right outside the constitution. It is removed from the states, their own capabilities, and their own populations to set their own limits and have their own debates about it. It really distorts everything and makes the environment extremely toxic, not only that, as we discussed in the podcast about Dobbs, it is also vague, because its standards have changed over the years, rulings and what it is means. It has not kept up with the pace of science because we are able to give birth at smaller and smaller gestational ages. So it's just that it has a lot of problems, and it is indeed clear in Dobb's argument that the judges are thinking very seriously about what happened and whether there is a way out. Now, they may have proposed something that failed to overthrow Roe and Casey, and it may be that the doctrine is something that Texas wants to adopt, not this law. But this definitely seems to be a way, please remember that it has been going on for a while, and of course a national dialogue about all this can be launched again at the Supreme Court level, and it does play some role in it.
Kyle Peterson: Hold on. We will be back soon. You are listening to the Potomac Watch of The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: From the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.
Kyle Peterson: Welcome back. On Thursday, the New York City Council approved a bill that would allow non-citizens, permanent residents, and people with work permits to vote in local elections. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who opposed this in the past ( Bill de Blasio) stated that he did not consider it legal, and recently said that he would not veto it. As far as I know, this argument involves the fact that many of these people have lived in these communities for a long time. They pay taxes in these communities, and we have a snippet of this argument made by a congresswoman Margaret Chin.
Congressman Margaret Chin: There are many people, many immigrants from all over the world. I marched and marched with immigrants from Africa, Russia and Asia. They won the right of representation. My mother cannot vote for me because she is not a citizen. She has a green card. She paid taxes. There are many members in the community, especially the elderly, who have been in class, trying to learn the language. It's not easy, and the price of the app has been rising.
Kyle Peterson: Bill, I will throw it to you. I mean, the argument again is that these people are paying taxes, and it is not always easy for them to become citizens in our community. There is an application fee.
Bill McGahn: Yes, there are fees, but I mean, I think the reason is that American citizens are highly valued. This is one of the most valuable things in the world that I think now. Look, I live in two European countries and one Asian country. I have paid taxes for many, many years, but I can't vote. I think there is something wrong with not voting for me. In addition, I believe that the law of New York is that you can establish residency within 30 days. For me, this is an invitation to corruption, chaos, voting fraud, and all sorts of things. I don't think this is a close call. I think citizenship should be meaningful. If it's just paying taxes, we have many taxpayers here. Should they all be citizens? I think citizens should... I think citizens should have a price. We have many rights and responsibilities, and we have many protections when we go abroad. Because we are American citizens, I think we should not take it lightly. Take a look too, let's make it clear. This is a way for Bill de Blasio and the Democrats who think that as long as they don’t ask any questions and give everyone a voting card, they will get more votes.
Kyle Peterson: Regarding the right of abode, this is the rule that the bill will impose. This will be a 30-day residency requirement, which has caused some opposition in the debate about this. We have a clip from Congressman Mark Gjonaj.
Congressman Mark Gjonaj: This bill in its current form does not protect New York City, nor does it make it fairer. This makes it vulnerable to external influences, whether it is Russia, China, or any other freedom and value principles that are different from us Americans.
Kyle Peterson: Part of his argument is that the 30-day residence is very short, so this will cover those who come to New York for work or projects and then return to their home country or another place of origin. He was arguing about the residency requirement for one year. I mean Kim, which makes more sense, but I think Bill and I agree on this issue.
Kinstrassell: Oh, absolutely. This is crazy. I mean, just think about it. I think this is a bit far-fetched, but we know that some of our foreign opponents want to disrupt our elections and want to sow the extent of the problem. What if Russia or China really has a whole...put a large group of people on the plane? They are all tourists from New York City. They have been there for at least 30 days. They voted in the election and went home. I mean, voting must involve some integrity. This is a debate that we have been having as a country, especially in the past year. Because we know you can vote more easily. You can give more people voting rights. However, if you don’t have a system that convinces people that their votes will not be diluted by unfair cheating votes, then they will lose interest in participating in elections. The whole thing is also a bit crazy, because if you look at the New York Constitution, you don’t even know if it’s legal or not. I know you know the argument. Kyle and I will kick off the ball, but now, the New York Constitution stipulates that citizens have The right to vote, "provided that the citizen is over 18 years old" and has been a resident for 30 days. They are basically arguing because it does not say that non-citizens can vote, they can vote. Well, I mean, does this mean that anything that is not clearly stipulated in the constitution is allowed?
Kyle Peterson: Bill, I think this is a key argument. My guess is that it will be entangled in court, and the voice of reason here, Bill de Blasio, thinks it’s not. If it is legal or illegal, it will prove to be correct and unconstitutional, and some Republicans have threatened to sue it. I haven't seen any lawsuits, but there is no doubt that they will come in the next few weeks.
Bill McGahn: Yes, I'm not sure it will help the Democratic Party. I don't think this will become a hot issue for many people. I think many Americans take their citizenship very seriously. They think we have lowered it rather than enhanced it, and I think they have a good case. But it will be interesting, because the Constitution largely allows states to decide voters, so there will be some interesting back and forth when it inevitably enters the courts.
Kyle Peterson: In my opinion, Kim, there are all kinds of people who pay taxes in New York or are interested in New York. The second homeowner is certainly interested in city services, police, and firefighting. They may have to pay property taxes. International students may live in New York. They may have to pay sales tax. They may work on campus. There are a lot of people in between living in New York and part of the community, but a good place to draw a clear line from me is citizenship. If you are outside this range, then I think it is difficult for you to explain why this group should vote in local elections and this group should not.
Kingstrassel: Of course. You use the word bright line, it is the best bright line. It's worth noting that we played the first woman who advocated this in this clip. She was talking about how to be good...it is difficult to obtain citizenship. Yes, yes. This is difficult because, as Bill said, it is a great privilege and honor. You have to do some work for it, and yes, you have to pay for it. I think this is a very important point, that the people she advocates are not that someone refuses to make them citizens. It's not that they are in a situation that they desperately want, but someone tells them no. But they don't, even if they can use the option. So, it makes sense to me, and also emphasize that your highlight is that for people here, they are green cards, they make a promise, and then they can leave and get citizenship. That is the reward, the right to vote. If you open up your heart to others, you will eventually encounter endless and complicated questions about who should qualify. The ultimate problem is to really make others mistrust the sanctity of elections.
Kyle Peterson: The last point, Bill will give you the final conclusion, this is a practical problem, because non-citizens cannot vote in state and local elections. Essentially, this means that New York City needs two voter lists, one for citizens and one for non-citizens. Two completely different sets of ballots are required at each polling station, because if a non-citizen comes and registers and is able to vote, you must get the ballot without those state and federal races. Especially in cities like New York, even under the current rules, the Election Commission has not proven that it can run a clean store, which poses more complex challenges for them. In my opinion, this seems to be a serious one. risk.
Bill McGurn: Yes, this is the secret to creating chaos. Who will use chaos? People who want to cheat. I think this is just an invitation to disaster. As you said, in addition to the constitutional and philosophical objections, given the differences between the federal, city, and state boundaries on how we manage this issue, there are real Actual objections. Except for New York, no place can pass this. This should convince us that they can handle it. However, we have encountered a lot of trouble in the regular federal elections. We have trouble organizing all of this, and then we will further increase the complexity, so that the people who come for 30 days may be citizens, even if they stay there for a year, we have to go... I just think this is a The invitation to disaster will be unmanageable.
Kyle Peterson: Thank you Bill and King. Thank you all for listening. We will be back next week with another version of Potomac Watch.
Paul Gigot is the editorial editor and vice president of The Wall Street Journal, a position he has held since 2001. He is responsible for the newspaper's editorials, column articles and leisure and art reviews, and directs the editorial and European editions of the magazine's Asian and European editions and the OpinionJournal.com website. He is also the host of the weekly half-hour news program "Journal Editorial Report" on the Fox News Channel.
Mr. Gigot joined The Wall Street Journal in 1980 as a Chicago correspondent, and in 1982, he became the Wall Street Journal's Asian correspondent in Hong Kong. He won the Overseas Press Club Award for covering the Philippines. In 1984, he was appointed as the first editorial editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal, based in Hong Kong. In 1987, he was assigned to Washington, where he wrote editorials and a weekly political column "Potomac Observation", which won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism.
Mr. Gigot graduated with honors from Dartmouth College and served as the chairman of the Student Daily.