This photo provided by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shows Judge Neil Gorsuch.
10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals/AP
This photo provided by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shows Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Now playing
00:48
The man who could replace Justice Scalia
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee convene a meeting to discuss what they see as Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland's qualifications to serve on the high court in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 18, 2016 in Washington, DC. Democrats left half the seats at the dais vacant so to emphasize the Senate Republicans' opposition to holding confirmation hearings for Judge Garland.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee convene a meeting to discuss what they see as Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland's qualifications to serve on the high court in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 18, 2016 in Washington, DC. Democrats left half the seats at the dais vacant so to emphasize the Senate Republicans' opposition to holding confirmation hearings for Judge Garland.
Now playing
02:51
Gorsuch Senate vote headed towards showdown
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 12: Members of the Supreme Court, (L-R) Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Anthony Kennendy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, applaud as U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol February 12, 2013 in Washington, DC. Facing a divided Congress, Obama focused his speech on new initiatives designed to stimulate the U.S. economy and said, 'It?s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth'. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 12: Members of the Supreme Court, (L-R) Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Anthony Kennendy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, applaud as U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol February 12, 2013 in Washington, DC. Facing a divided Congress, Obama focused his speech on new initiatives designed to stimulate the U.S. economy and said, 'It?s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth'. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:21
A look at the current Supreme Court
gorsuch physician assisted suicide gupta pkg ebof_00010927.jpg
CNN
gorsuch physician assisted suicide gupta pkg ebof_00010927.jpg
Now playing
04:57
Gorsuch's views on assisted suicide under fire
Spicer Briefing 4-3
CNN
Spicer Briefing 4-3
Now playing
01:05
White House OK with nuclear option on Gorsuch
photo collage/Getty Images
Now playing
02:18
Senate showdown over Gorsuch
orrin hatch gorsuch vote bs sot_00010105.jpg
orrin hatch gorsuch vote bs sot_00010105.jpg
Now playing
01:33
Hatch: Gorsuch-Garland comparisons are 'b.s.'
Richard Blumenthal newday
CNN
Richard Blumenthal newday
Now playing
01:26
Will GOP use 'nuclear' option on Gorsuch vote?
Neil M. Gorsuch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be an associate justice of the US Supreme Court during a hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC on March 21, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN        (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
Neil M. Gorsuch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be an associate justice of the US Supreme Court during a hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC on March 21, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Now playing
02:49
Gorsuch sends clear message to Democrats
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31:  U.S. President Donald Trump (R) nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House January 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. If confirmed, Gorsuch would fill the seat left vacant with the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House January 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. If confirmed, Gorsuch would fill the seat left vacant with the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:37
How Gorsuch might disappoint Trump

Story highlights

Richard L. Hasen: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases that will impact voting rights and campaign contributions

Confirming Judge Neil Gorsuch as a justice would swing the votes toward troubling decisions, he writes

Editor’s Note: Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine School of Law and author of “Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN) —  

It’s no big deal, the thinking goes, that the Senate seems likely to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, as President Trump urged in his speech Tuesday night.

The President encouraged this line of thought – that elevating the judge from the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit “fills [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s seat” with another conservative and just returns the court to a five-justice conservative majority that it had before Scalia passed away last February. Nothing to see here, supposedly; the real action will come when swing Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the liberal justices leaves, moving the court further to the right. Democrats should hold their fire until it counts.

Richard L. Hasen
Courtesy of Richard L. Hasen
Richard L. Hasen

Unfortunately, this approach obscures the fact that keeping the steady course with a conservative replacement for Scalia will be bad enough across a range of topics important to many Americans, from environmental protection to immigration law to the ability of labor unions to collect dues from their members. Even though Gorsuch is not a Scalia clone, things are likely to be pretty bad on these key issues, because Gorsuch is likely to vote like Scalia, and the court with Scalia already was moving in a very bad direction.

Consider how things will likely get worse in two areas that are the focus of my work, campaign finance and voting rights.

The controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing candidates for office. Fortunately, the case concerned only spending limits, and it didn’t say anything about contribution limits. The Supreme Court has generally been much more willing to allow contribution limits because the court has said they pose a greater danger of corruption.

In its most recent campaign finance case, however, 2014’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court started making it harder for states to defend contribution limits, too. In McCutcheon, Chief Justice John Roberts resisted pleas from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to subject those limits to “strict scrutiny” as spending limits are, but he still gave lower courts several new tools to strike down contribution limits.

The court will soon have the opportunity to revisit the constitutionality of contribution limits, as it faces an appeal brought by Jim Bopp, the lawyer who is behind Citizens United. The case asks the court to overturn its 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC upholding the limits on six- and seven-figure “soft money” contributions that political parties routinely collected from wealthy donors before Congress passed the main campaign finance law.

Scalia believed the soft money ban was unconstitutional. He, like Justice Clarence Thomas and McConnnell, contended that contribution limits should be subject to strict scrutiny and almost always struck down. Gorsuch likely thinks the same thing. He went out of his way to write a concurring opinion in a 2014 campaign finance case before the 10th Circuit to express his belief that current law already applies something “pretty close” to strict scrutiny to review contribution limits, and there are good arguments to apply full strict scrutiny. But even if he does not, he could follow the chief justice’s McCutcheon opinion and strike the limits down anyway.

The court with Gorsuch, like a court with Scalia still on it, seems poised to kill off what’s left of McCain-Feingold and potentially open the door to candidates taking unlimited contributions from individuals and perhaps even corporations.

Things on the voting rights side could get worse as well. In a 2008 case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Scalia, in an opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Thomas, voted to uphold Indiana’s strict photographic identification law against a constitutional challenge. Scalia took the position that if the voting law imposed little burden on most people, it could be constitutionally applied against all people, even those who face severe burdens getting ID.

The court voted 6-3 to uphold the law, but Scalia’s more extreme position did not prevail. Instead, a narrower opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, allowing those facing severe burdens to go to court seeking exceptions to the law, prevailed.

The court will likely decide in a matter of weeks whether to take up a follow-on case to Crawford, considering North Carolina’s strict voting law. That law not only imposed a strict voter ID provision, it also cut back on early voting, eliminated some provisional voting, and stopped preregistration of 17- and 18-year-olds. The 4th Circuit held the law was enacted with a racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Voting Rights Act, with the North Carolina Legislature targeting it at African-American voters with “almost surgical precision.”

Get our free weekly newsletter

We don’t have any direct information from his 10th Circuit opinions on how Gorsuch would view such a voting rights claim, but his general approach to interpretation and his overall conservativism suggest he would not likely side with the voting rights plaintiffs in this case. In a 2005 National Review article (which he recently called “probably one of his biggest mistakes,” though it is not clear why he now thinks so) he wrote that “the left” uses constitutional litigation too much to try to protect rights, rather than working through the political process. While Gorsuch may not go as far as Scalia in voting cases, it will be a good bet he will read the Voting Rights Act narrowly so as not to give extra protections to minority voters, seeing it as the left resorting to the courts to solve their problems.

No doubt, things are going to be very bad if one of the liberals or swing Justice Anthony Kennedy leaves the court while Trump is President. But the simple confirmation of Gorsuch would not restore the status quo. It would keep things moving in the very troubling direction they were going while Scalia was still on the court.