Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Election Law and Practice
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Alan, Founding Moderator and Author
(last edited Dec 05, 2025 07:57AM)
(new)
Jan 27, 2024 07:07AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
See this January 25, 2024 Politico op-ed by Professor Richard L. Hasen: https://www.politico.com/news/magazin....
Hasen is professor of law and political science at UCLA, where he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project. He is the author of the forthcoming book A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.
Mod
See this March 25, 2025 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/voting-ele....
Mod
President Donald Trump’s March 25, 2025 Executive Order regarding elections is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti....
This Executive Order is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. It is designed to reverse the US Founders’ determination, enshrined in the US Constitution, to decentralize election procedure so that the president cannot, like a monarch or dictator, control and manipulate elections. In the present case, very few people would meet Trump’s requirement that they have a passport or other official government document specifically stating that they are US citizens. A birth certificate would not be sufficient. If successful, this Executive Order would disenfranchise the vast majority of Americans. This is clearly its intention: to reduce voting to those who have passports and thereby to create a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy elite).
For further information, see this March 28, 2025 Washington Post editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio.... Although this is in the form of an editorial, it sets forth the applicable law and is more a statement of fact than a statement of opinion.
Mod
This case, on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, can be found at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions.... The majority opinion, as usual in such interim cases, did not identify an author. Among other things, the majority held as follows:
With an eye on the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, several States have in recent months redrawn their congressional districts in ways that are predicted to favor the State’s dominant political party. Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done. North Carolina followed suit, and other States are also considering new maps.In additional opinions, JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH joined, concurred in the grant of the application for stay; JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE JACKSON joined, dissented from the grant of the application for stay. These opinions can also be accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions....
Respondents in this case challenged the new Texas map, contending that the legislature’s motive was predominantly racial. A divided three-judge District Court agreed and enjoined the use of the new map in the 2026 elections. With the 2026 campaign underway, the State of Texas and several of its officials applied to this Court for a stay. . . .
. . . Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors. First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature . . . . Second, the District Court failed to draw a dispositive or near dispositive adverse inference against respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals. . . .
Texas has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 589 U. S. 423, 424 (2020) (per curiam). The District Court violated that rule here. The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted. The November 18, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21–cv–259, is stayed pending the timely filing of an appeal in this Court.
See also the SCOTUSblog account of this decision at https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/su....
