Anderson on the Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Louisiana Gerrymandering Case

As we approach the election, the Supreme Court’s announcement to hear the case concerning Louisiana’s congressional maps raises significant concerns for the future of voting rights in our state and beyond. While I anticipated that the Louisiana State Legislature would revisit the district after the election, the involvement of the Supreme Court adds an unpredictable and complex dimension to an already critical issue.

I have always been firmly opposed to gerrymandering. It is an unethical practice that undermines our democratic process and increasingly leads to the disenfranchisement of voters while consolidating political power in the hands of a few. The prospect of an extremely conservative Supreme Court weighing in on this matter is troubling, especially given their recent decisions that have often been hostile to voting rights.

While I will withhold presumptive judgment on the Court’s eventual ruling, it is vital that we uphold certain core principles regardless of the outcome. First and foremost, Black voters must be fairly represented in our political system. Secondly, congressional districts should make sense geographically, reflecting the communities they serve. Lastly, voters should never be punished or disenfranchised for voting according to their interests.

The stakes are high, and the fight for equitable representation is ongoing. I am committed to advocating for policies that ensure every voice in our community is heard and respected. Together, we must remain vigilant in defending our rights and ensuring that our electoral process reflects the values of fairness and justice.

– Quentin

Anderson Official Statement on Trump SCOTUS Decision

Today, our democracy faces a grave threat from the recent Supreme Court ruling that dangerously expands presidential immunity. This decision grants former presidents an unprecedented shield from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their tenure, effectively placing them above the law. This is not just a legal precedent; it is a perilous shift that undermines the very foundation of our constitutional democracy. When the highest office in the land is immune from accountability, we risk sliding into autocracy.

The implications of this ruling are stark and alarming. It sets a dangerous precedent that could embolden future presidents to act with impunity, knowing they are protected from the consequences of their actions. This is not the vision our Founding Fathers had for this nation. They envisaged a republic where no one, not even the President, is above the law.

As we stand on the brink of potentially facing a second Trump term, the urgency to elect bold, courageous leaders has never been greater. The Trump/MAGA agenda thrives on weakening the rule of law and eroding democratic norms. We cannot afford to have corruptible politicians who will be easy pickings in such a political environment.

This ruling underscores the need for leaders who will fight tirelessly to uphold justice, integrity, and the rule of law. Leaders who will resist the corrosive influence of authoritarianism and stand firm against any attempt to undermine our democratic institutions.

Electing bold, courageous leaders is not just about policy; it is about preserving the soul of our nation. It is about ensuring that our government remains of the people, by the people, and for the people. We must reject those who seek power for personal gain and instead choose those who are committed to serving with honor, transparency, and accountability.

Our democracy depends on it. Our future depends on it. That’s why this November, we must elect leaders who will protect the rule of law and safeguard the principles of our great nation.

You can read the full decision and our breakdown of the case here.

For Immediate Release - Anderson Trump SCOTUS Statement

Trump v. United States: What the SCOTUS ruling means

The Supreme Court’s decision in “Trump v. United States” revolves around the question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. Here’s a detailed analysis of the decision:

  1. Nature of the Case:
    • Former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on four counts related to actions taken during his presidency following the November 2020 election.
    • The indictment alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the election results by spreading false claims of election fraud and obstructing the certification of the election.

Key Points of the Decision

  1. Presidential Immunity:
    • The Supreme Court examined the extent to which a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the scope of official responsibilities.
    • The Court held that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. This includes core presidential powers that cannot be overridden by Congress or subjected to judicial scrutiny.
    • In other words: The Court decided that a former President cannot be prosecuted for actions that are part of their essential presidential duties. 
  2. Separation of Powers:
    • The decision emphasized the constitutional principle of separation of powers, asserting that criminally prosecuting a President for official acts poses a significant threat to the functioning of the Executive Branch.
    • The Court recognized that while there is a compelling public interest in law enforcement, this must be balanced against the need to preserve the President’s ability to perform his duties without undue caution.
    • In other words: The Court stressed that prosecuting a President for official actions could disrupt how the Executive Branch works. 
  3. Specific Allegations in the Indictment:
    • The indictment included various allegations against Trump, such as using the Justice Department to investigate election fraud and pressuring the Vice President to alter the certification of election results.
    • The Court remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether these specific actions were official or unofficial, and to decide if Trump’s conduct in each instance fell within the scope of presidential immunity.
    • In other words: The Court sent the case back to a lower court to decide if Trump’s actions were part of his official duties and therefore protected by immunity. 
  4. Broader Implications:The Supreme Court’s ruling in “Trump v. United States” potentially sets several important precedents regarding presidential immunity and the separation of powers. Here are the key precedents established by this decision:
    • Absolute Immunity for Core Constitutional Powers:
      • The ruling establishes that a former President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the “conclusive and preclusive” scope of his core constitutional powers. This includes actions that fall exclusively within the President’s constitutional authority and cannot be overridden by Congress or scrutinized by the courts.
      • In other words: The decision means a former President cannot be prosecuted for actions that are a key part of their constitutional powers. 
    • Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts:
      • The Court held that a former President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. This immunity is designed to protect the President’s ability to perform his duties without undue caution or fear of future prosecution.
      • In other words: The Court decided that a former President is generally protected from prosecution for actions related to their official duties to ensure they can do their job without constant fear of legal consequences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in “Trump v. United States” establishes a framework for assessing presidential immunity in the context of criminal prosecutions. It balances the need to hold a President accountable with the necessity of protecting the Executive Branch’s independence and functionality. The case was remanded to the District Court for a detailed analysis of the specific allegations against Trump, focusing on whether his actions were within the scope of his official duties.

See the full decision below:

supreme-court-immunity-opinion

Why We’re Sharing Our Unfiled Supreme Court Brief

Today, I want to share a bit of the behind-the-scenes of our campaign and a challenge we recently faced that speaks volumes about the hurdles grassroots campaigns often encounter.

We crafted an amicus brief to support maintaining the current electoral map in Louisiana’s 6th District amid ongoing legal disputes. This map is crucial for ensuring that this year’s election is fair and voters aren’t left baffled by last-minute changes. Our brief focused on how sudden shifts in district boundaries could confuse voters and disadvantage grassroots campaigns like ours, which don’t have the deep pockets or extensive legal teams that some of our competitors might.

However, we hit a snag.

Despite our best efforts, we couldn’t secure a Supreme Court-qualified attorney in time to file our brief. The reality for a grassroots campaign like ours – running on a shoestring budget – is that accessing such resources isn’t always feasible. Unlike campaigns flush with millions, we operate with what we have, which means we sometimes face limitations that aren’t just financial but also logistical.

Rather than let our hard work sit unseen on a desk, we’ve decided to make our brief public. We believe it’s crucial for everyone to understand how important stable electoral boundaries are for fair elections. You can check out our full argument below — it’s a plea for clarity and fairness, qualities that should define every election but often don’t.

This isn’t just about our campaign. It’s about ensuring that all candidates and voters can engage in a transparent and democratic process, without the goalposts moving unexpectedly. We’re sharing our story and this brief to highlight how critical—and fragile—our democratic processes can be, especially for those of us without endless resources.

AndersonAmicus_CallaisvLandrySCOTUS_2024

 

We want to thank Ashley White, Kenneth Barnes, Louisiana Appleseed and countless other invaluable advisors who helped us articulate an argument we think is crucial not only to this campaign, but to our democracy moving forward.