If lawmakers wore a blindfold, would they still vote this way?

James Martorano

The recently signed monumental Rescissions Act of 2025 has been the center of intense interest and controversy.

Narrow margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved it. Presumably, each elected official weighed the pros and cons of the legislation before voting. Given the partisan flavor of the final tally, it is not far-fetched to assume that legislators' deliberative process was influenced by overwhelming political pressure from their respective parties' leadership and their self-interest.

In preparation for the column, I have painstakingly reviewed the bill. However, that may have been a waste of time since my concern here is broader than this document; it is the process itself, specifically focusing on the parochial interests of the elected officials tasked with voting on the legislation. The whole sordid procedure we all witnessed made me wonder: Is there a way to ensure that legislators’ perspectives are less about their political concerns and more in tune with the needs of their constituents? I know that our elected officials are adept at spinning their votes to suggest that they did vote with their constituents’ interests in mind, but given the details of this bill, such a claim stretches credulity to its breaking point. So, I wondered what the solution was.

Then I remembered when John Rawls, one of the most significant ethicists of any generation, published his groundbreaking book, "A Theory of Justice," when I was in graduate school in 1971. This book rocked my world back then, and its ripples are still being felt in intellectual circles in 2025. But why? What was so extraordinary about this work that would make it essential then and relevant today? The answer lies in a simple thought experiment that the author proposed.

In his seminal work, Rawls presented a different ethical framework that, if adopted, would foster more just and equitable outcomes. He proposed a thought experiment allowing lawmakers to adopt an impartial perspective, devoid of personal biases, partisan pressures and self-interest. Rawls' objective was for the government to embrace equal rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone.

Rawls' idea was quite simple: Anyone considering a vote on any crucial legislation should imagine they are behind a “veil of ignorance” regarding their social, economic, gender, geographic and racial status. Visualize a situation where you have no idea what money you have, what position you have, your health, your race, gender, your religion, your nationality, basically, your entire situation. You could be a person dependent on SNAP programs, Medicaid, Medicare or other safety net programs. You could be an immigrant without papers, an incarcerated individual, or an object of rampant prejudice and discrimination. You don’t know.

As stated at the beginning of this essay, legislators' decisions are often influenced by their social positions, economic interests, political ideologies, ambitions, or constituents' interests. This can lead to policies that favor certain groups, wealthy campaign donors, elites, powerful industries, party leaders or dominant cultural groups while neglecting marginalized populations.

Rawls' theory in a nutshell: when legislators don't know the positions of those who usually have power over them, they are more likely to evaluate policies solely on their merits, based on whether they are fair to all societal members. This leads to a greater focus on fairness centered on the well-being of society rather than on groups.

Unfortunately, what is “fair” today is based on procedural or outcome-based interpretations, sometimes entangled with partisan or material gains. Under the “veil,” fairness would be understood as respecting fundamental rights and ensuring equitable treatment, recognizing that any individual could be in the position of the disadvantaged. Such a perspective fosters a view that fairness involves upholding fundamental liberties and eliminating arbitrary advantages.

Without the veil, legislators' assessment of fairness may be uneven, influenced by stereotypes, biases or assumptions about social roles. But under the veil, lawmakers imagine themselves in the shoes of society’s most vulnerable, such as low-income families, racial minorities, immigrants without papers, or people with disabilities, and recognize issues they may have previously overlooked and dismissed. This viewpoint increases empathy and promotes concern for social safety nets and anti-discrimination measures.

Without the veil, perceptions may be fragmented. Societal problems may be viewed as isolated or solely as the result of personal failings. Utilizing Rawls’ thought experiment would ensure that decisions are made with awareness that society is interconnected; policies affect individuals and the social fabric. This awareness fosters an understanding that fairness involves balancing individual rights with social obligations.

Legislators prioritize short-term gains, electoral advantage and party loyalty without the veil, often at the expense of fairness to less privileged groups. Under the veil, legislators must consider policies from a temporal, impartial standpoint, emphasizing lasting justice and societal stability. Their perception of fairness would incorporate future impact, leading to more equitable, forward-looking decisions.

Without the veil, lawmakers are disproportionately influenced by personal or group privilege; those with wealth or influence may advocate for policies entailing inequality. Because social status is unknown, under the veil, legislators are less susceptible to favoring their socioeconomic group. As a result, perceptions of fairness become detached from social privilege, aligning instead with principles that protect the least advantaged.

Without the veil, judgments about what is fair may be rooted in cultural norms, political ideology or personal morals. Under the veil, the decision process becomes a moral exercise rooted in rational fairness, prompting legislators to uphold ethical principles they would endorse if they were unaware of their social destiny. This can lead to a more consistent and principled understanding of fairness.

In summary, requiring legislators to make decisions without knowing their socioeconomic status encourages them to move from subjective, self-interested perceptions of fairness towards an impartial, principled stance. This shift would inevitably include:

1. Prioritizing universal rights and justice rather than group advantage.

2. Recognizing the moral importance of protecting society’s most vulnerable.

3. Appreciating societal interdependence and shared responsibility.

4. Emphasizing fairness as equity and respect, not privilege or partisan advantage, and appreciating societal interdependence and shared responsibility.

5. Fostering empathy, humility and moral consistency.

For me, Rawls' main point of the veil is to promote empathy: the ability to look beyond selfish interests to imagine another person’s plight. We all remember Mary T. Lathrap’s 1895 poem, which included the famous phrase, “take the time to walk a mile in his moccasins.” What makes Rawls' theory interesting is that he uses self-interest as a motivating factor since, utilizing his thought experiment, you don’t know which group you may be in. If you vote against the interests of the most vulnerable (which this bill repeatedly does), you may be voting against yourself.

As I reflect on Rawls' thought experiment, I am reminded of a whole category of science fiction books and films in which an oppressor becomes the oppressed, as the protagonist is magically transported into the body of a person who is the target of the hateful and violent persecution they helped instigate. Although Rawls’ particular creation is unique, the idea is not unusual.

In a second book, "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" (2001), Rawls honed his concepts, but the main thrust of his argument remained the same. Rawls died the following year (2002). I wish I could have met him. We would have had a lot to discuss. Today, he is acknowledged as one of the leading philosophical minds of the 20th century.

I know Rawls' thought experiment will never make the slightest dent in today's political system. Even so, the veil of ignorance can provide a valuable tool for evaluating considerations of justice and fairness. I know it has for me.