Voters Oppose Conservative Jurisprudence
By Isa Alomran, Evangel Penumaka, and Ethan Winter
Republican Senators are moving quickly to confirm President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett. This is in spite of the fact that several Republicans who sit on the Senate Judiciary committee, such as Mike Lee, recently tested positive for the coronavirus -- not to mention that millions of votes have already been cast in the election.
As part of an October survey, Data for Progress asked likely voters how they would prefer to see the Supreme Court rule on a range of issues, including the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). We find that, in general, likely voters support liberal-leaning decisions. The unpopularity of conservative jurisprudence -- that is, policy that flows from the judiciary -- helps to explain the urgency at which the Republican Party now moves and why, for instance, a Supreme Court confirmation is more important than coronavirus aid.
First, we asked likely voters about their views on whether the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. We find that likely voters, overwhelmingly, think that the EPA has this authority. Among all likely voters, voters agree that the EPA has the regulatory authority to regulate pollutants by a 51-percentage-point margin. We also find that both voters that self-identify as Democrats and Republicans agree by margins of 63-percentage-points and 40-percentage-points, respectively.
We also asked likely voters about their views on how the Supreme Court should handle cases that concern state-issued public health measures designed to contain the spread of the coronavirus. This summer, the Supreme Court heard several cases from churches claiming they should be exempt from state rules that limit in-person gatherings. To date, the court has ruled against the churches, upholding state regulations. A majority of voters agree that public health measures that apply to everyone equally and protect public health should be left in place. Among all likely voters, by a 31-percentage-point margin, voters think these measures are constitutional. We find that both Democrats and Republicans agree with upholding these regulations by, on net, 53-percentage-points and eight-percentage-points, respectively.
Additionally, we asked likely voters whether the Supreme Court should uphold the ACA. We find that a majority of likely voters think that the ACA should be upheld, leaving in place it’s Medicaid expansion and protections for those with pre-existing condition coverage -- parts of the law wholly unrelated to the individual mandate. More specifically, by a margin of 25-percentage-points, voters want the ACA to be upheld. Opinions do diverge slightly along partisan lines, however. A majority of Democrats (75 percent) want the ACA upheld. Republicans, meanwhile, are more split: Fifty-three percent want it struck down and 40 percent want it upheld.
The Republican Party supports a lot of policies that are unpopular. Support for the repeal of the ACA is an illustrative example. The Republican Party failed to get rid of the law through traditional democratic channels, i.e., the House of Representatives and Senate. Republicans, however, continue to be relentless. So, not for the first time, Republicans launched a legal challenge to the law. They argued that because the mandate was zeroed out, the law no longer functioned as designed, and must now be killed in its entirety. In other words, a goal the Republican tax law of 2017, passed shortly after the Republican Party failed to muster enough votes to strike down the law, covertly accomplished. We should see for what it is: plainly ridiculous.
But it is revealing. The Republican Party can cement a 6 v. 3 majority on the court and use an undemocratic branch of government to enact unpopular policies that would not pass in a democratic legislative body. Likely voters want the ACA upheld, states to have the authority to put into place common sense measures that contain the spread of the coronavirus, and federal agencies that regulate CO2 emissions.
Isa Alomran is an intern at Data for Progress.
Evangel Penumaka (@evangelpenumaka) is a polling analyst at Data for Progress
Ethan Winter (@EthanBWinter) is an analyst at Data for Progress. You can email him at ethan@dataforprogress.org
Methodology
From September 25 through September 27, 2020, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,092 likely voters nationally using web-panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Question Wording
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency , the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. When thinking about this case, what comes closer to your view?
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants, and the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate pollutants such as these that can harm public health.
The EPA does not need to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases because the agency does not have the regulatory authority to address global climate change
Don’t know
This summer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state governments that put in place rules designed to contain the spread of the coronavirus. To this point, the Supreme Court has rejected arguments that churches should be exempt from state rules that limit in-person gatherings. These churches have argued these rules violate their religious liberties and the ability of them to freely practice their religion. When thinking about how the Supreme Court should handle cases like this, what comes closer to your view?
It is unconstitutional that these restrictions apply to in-person gatherings for religious purposes. Even during a pandemic, one’s religious liberty shouldn’t be limited in this way. Americans are guaranteed the right to exercise their religion in the way they see fit and so these religious gatherings should be allowed to take place.
State laws that limit the size of in-person gatherings are common sense measures that will reduce the spread of the coronavirus. They are legal and should be left in place as long as deemed necessary to protect public health. Because these laws apply to everyone equally, they’re not discriminating against church gatherings in this case.
Don’t know
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Affordable Care Act a week after the November election. In 2017, Republicans eliminated the individual mandate part of the law that required individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. Republicans now argue that without the mandate, the entire law is now unconstitutional and must be thrown out. When thinking about what the Supreme Court should do about the Affordable Care Act, what comes closer to your view?
The Affordable Care Act should be struck down because Congress eliminated the mandate. The law was constitutional in the first place because it set up this system of regulations, marketplaces, and the mandate. Without the mandate, the law ceases to work as designed and so should be scrapped. If Congress wants to do something like protect pre-existing conditions, they should just pass a new law.
The Affordable Care Act should be upheld. The law includes provisions where people can’t be denied health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition and also expanded Medicaid, a program that gives health insurance to lower income Americans. These provisions, which are unrelated to the mandate, don’t need to be thrown out because Congress made one change.
Don’t know