In case you have not read the Amendments to the Constitution lately, you will learn something new in this post. Michael Meltsner wrote in The American Prospect that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment is as important as the well-discussed Section 3 (which says that a person who has taken the oath of office and engaged in an insurrection may not run for federal office). As I hope you know, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were written in the aftermath of the Civil War and were meant to abolish slavery, guarantee equal rights to all Americans, and establish the right to vote.

Here is Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

Meltsner wrote:

Attention in recent days has been paid to the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald Trump can be barred from the presidential ballot for participating in an insurrection as ordered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Maine’s secretary of state has also ruled Trump out. But under the radar, a separate case involving that amendment has been working through the courts, which would be just as impactful for the outcome of the 2024 elections.

About a year ago, I reported in the Prospect on a pending lawsuit filed on behalf of a citizens group by former Department of Justice lawyer Jared Pettinato. The suit asks that the Census Bureau be required to enforce Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868 to strip congressional representation from states that disfranchise voters. The text applies to general methods states adopt that keep people from voting and is not limited to racial discrimination. The proportional loss of congressional representation would also reduce the votes that states would get in the Electoral College.

The Section 2 case is now moving toward resolution. Briefs have been filed, and oral argument is expected shortly before the court of appeals in Washington, D.C.

Cases involving the two constitutional provisions of the 14th Amendment have major differences and striking similarities. Neither has been authoritatively interpreted.

On a structural level, enforcing Section 2 for the first time would conceivably sanction and thus potentially eliminate the web of restrictions and hurdles that keep substantial numbers of citizens from casting a vote. Some states would lose representatives, and electoral votes, to states that make it easier to vote. In contrast, the Section 3 insurrection issue is individualized, dealing only with a former president whose misdeeds are unique in American history.

But in both cases, the courts are being asked to render decisions that could change the political balance of power, outcomes that involve judicial intervention similar to the much-criticized Bush v. Gore decision that determined the presidency in 2000.

Finally, the odds are that the Colorado case will be reversed by the Supreme Court, while the future of the citizens group challenge under Section 2, while a long shot, is far from settled.

In the Section 2 case, a trial court decided that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, in large part because they hadn’t sufficiently shown that specific states would certainly lose and gain seats. But Pettinato’s complaint alleges at least one concrete disfranchisement scenario (and others are obvious).

Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law prevented 300,000 registered voters who lacked identification from casting a ballot, according to U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman. This finding was accepted as true on appeal, and should be accepted as true at this stage of the Section 2 litigation. As 300,000 registered voters is approximately 9 percent of Wisconsin’s total registrants, the complaint reasons that Wisconsin should lose 9 percent of its representatives, equal to one member of Congress and one electoral vote. Another state would gain that representative.

It may be significant that DOJ lawyers have now injected a new defense in their brief in the court of appeals, a move that often signals a belief that the theory relied on in the lower court is ultimately unpersuasive.

It’s amazing that, given the central role courts construing constitutional texts play in our public life, the terms of operationalizing the 135 words of Section 2 have never been settled in over 150 years. The few lawsuits brought under its terms have almost all found ways to avoid enforcement. Only one case, which I filed in the 1960s when I was first assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, had a different and unusual outcome. In that case brought by a group led by feminist and civil rights leader Daisy Lampkin, the judges unanimously took remedying disfranchisement by enforcing Section 2 seriously, but stayed their hand because they supposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 might make enforcing it unnecessary.

Regardless of the outcome in the court of appeals, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether the Constitution’s explicit remedy for disfranchisement has life or should be ignored. The Court has many tools that can be used to continue the tradition of nonenforcement. Standing to sue doctrine allows avoiding decisions on the merits; but with respect to Section 2, continued use of it in case after case amounts to saying that what the Constitution says doesn’t matter. For a judiciary that roams across the scope of American life in its decisions, such an outcome can only be seen as random, and thus really political, decision-making. And deciding the Section 3 case to allow Trump back onto the ballot while avoiding a decision in the Section 2 case would have clear political overtones.

Plus, failing to recognize the vitality of Section 2 will surely raise the specter of hypocrisy, as conservative justices have often looked to the original understanding of constitutional texts to justify decisions, an approach that would bring the 1868 disfranchisement remedy to the present day.

Here is another view of Section 2: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation12.html#