Two years ago today, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. Shelby County invalidated the coverage formula of the VRA, effectively nullifying the section that required jurisdictions that had a history of discriminatory voting practices to get federal preclearance before any new voting practices could be implemented. In the years since Shelby County, the number of states that have proposed laws that restrict access to voting is staggering. The obvious and far-reaching effects of this 5-4 decision highlight the incredible influence and power a single Supreme Court justice possesses.

Shelby County is not unique in its 5-4 split. It is not unusual for the outcome of a case to depend on the decision of a single swing justice. Some of the most prominent cases since the turn of the century have been 5-4 decisions: Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, NFIB v. Sebelius (Affordable Care Act). When the fate of such consequential cases can hinge on a single vote, the retirement and replacement of just one new justice could be huge.

The current SCOTUS bench is among the oldest since the New Deal. The average age of retirement for the past nine justices is 80.3 years old, and there are already several sitting justices who are approaching or past that age. It is the role of the president to appoint new Supreme Court justices, and because of the age of the current bench, he or she will almost surely be called upon to fulfill that duty. As 2016 approaches, the prospects of another general election that could includes another Clinton or Bush may leave many Americans feeling less excited about the election than they did it years past. With several aging Supreme Court justices, however, the significance of the 2016 election—irrespective of the eventual nominees—is astronomical.
Justice Age
2016 2020 2024
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83 87 91
Antonin Scalia 80 84 88
Anthony Kennedy 80 84 88
Stephen Breyer 78 82 86

The table above shows the ages of the four oldest justices at the next three elections. The justices’ ages in 2024 are included because incumbent presidents who run for reelection win two-thirds of the time, meaning that whoever is elected in 2016 has a good chance of remaining in office until 2025 if he or she chooses to run again.

If this continues to be the Vermont senator’s approach, Sanders will be more of a help to Clinton’s presidential chances than he will be to his own.

The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clinton’s Democratic allies in Congress explained that with a country that prefers general election candidates closer to the middle, Sanders will always offer proof that Clinton is not really that far left. He does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.....

In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the party’s inevitable nominee. It’s way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.

Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.