She relentlessly tried to protect voting rights
Two cases critical to ensuring voting rights for all U.S. citizens are Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Veasey v. Perry (2014), and Ginsburg had a hand in favorable decisions in both.
The former relates to dismantling the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Chief Justice Roberts basically said that racism was over, the information it was based on is too old to be reliable, and so the law was obsolete.
We know, of course, that racism is far from eradicated—and Ginsburg knew this, too.
“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Despite her challenge, however, the protective measure was eliminated. New Voter ID laws and the closure of specific polling places, plus other measures that affect marginalized communities disproportionately, have spiked as a result.
Veasey v. Perry (2014) related to voter ID law in Texas—Vox calls it one of the strictest in the country. Ultimately, the law was upheld, but it was sharply denounced in dissent written by Ginsburg during an all-nighter, with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor supporting.
A federal court had previously decided that Republican lawmakers in Texas deliberately targeted the voting rights of Black and Brown people with the law, but an appeals court later upheld it, claiming that changing policies so close to election day could “foster voter confusion.” The Supreme Court, unfortunately, agreed.
Released at 5 a.m. on a Saturday, Ginsburg’s dissent made clear that Texas knew what it was doing all along. “Any voter confusion or lack of public confidence in the electoral processes is in this case largely attributable to the State itself,” she noted. She also included a jab at the state, writing that “racial discrimination in elections in Texas is no mere historical artifact.”