Podcasts about election law blog

In this episode of Ripple Effect, Michael and Steve are joined by Rick Hasen, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project, to talk about the risks of subversion and violence surrounding the U.S. elections. They discuss former President Donald Trump's refusal to accept the election results in 2020, and his multi-pronged effort to overturn the result, which culminated in his supporters attacking the U.S. Capitol on 6 January 2021. They unpack the complex voting system in the U.S. and whether legal reforms in the aftermath of the 2020 elections are enough to safeguard against potential subversion in this cycle. They also discuss whether the tense political climate around the polls and efforts by Donald Trump and his supporters to sow distrust about the validity of the vote could lead to new violence. For more, check out Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog, our latest Q&A Risks of Violence around the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: A Primer and our United States program page. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

RICK HASEN is one of the country's foremost experts on Americanelection law, campaign finance, voting rights, voter suppression, andtransitions of power. In conversation with the highly awardedbroadcast journalist Warren Olney, Rick will provide his analysis onthe state of the current election with emphasis on efforts at votersuppression, legal cases impacting on voting rights, ballot counting,and challenges to election outcomes. Warren and Rick will discussthe prospects of a repeat of the events of the attack on the Capitol onJanuary 6, 2021.RICK HASEN is a professor of Law at UCLA Law and the Director ofUCLA Law's Safeguarding Democracy Project. He was a foundingeditor of the quarterly Election Law Journal, a peer reviewedpublication on election law. He runs Election Law Blog and is theauthor of 6 critically reviewed books including A Real Right to Vote:How a Constitutional Amendment can Safeguard AmericanDemocracy.Warren Olney was the host and executive producer of the naitonallsyndicated weekday afternoon program “To The Point.” He has beenhonored with nearly 40 awards for his work.

For the first episode of 2023, the podcast is joined by Rick Hasen--operator of the Election Law Blog and one of the top current democracy nerds--who explains why the Supreme Court needs to re-examine its decisions in the need to balance free speech interests with the need to have free & fair elections.

Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and FutureWe talked to Rick Pildes (NYU Law) a few days after the Moore v. Harper oral argument, the “independent state legislature” case that instilled many worries about the Court opening a door to state legislatures overriding the popular vote. While those fears were unfounded (so to speak), this case raises other concerns that federal courts will get more intwined with elections and will block state courts from enforcing their constitutions, overturning impermissible gerrymanders, and providing remedies. In “Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and Future,” we talk about how this case is haunted not only by the 2020 election, a fake electors scheme based on the Electors Claus(e), and an insurrection; it is also haunted by ghost-of-election-past Bush v. Gore and the ghosts-of-election-future. We also ask, “Do You Hear What I Hear?” The left embracing Rehnquist's Bush v. Gore concurrence? Jed also observes a Festivus Airing of Grievances about conservatives' originalism errors and the Democrats' litigation strategy.  There was barely enough historical evidence to sustain one hour of oral argument, but the Court made it last for what felt like eight. We also talk to Rick about election law in an era of fragmentation(North Pole-arization?)Rick is the Sudler Family Professor at NYU Law School anda co-creator of the major casebook in this field, The Law of Democracy. He has served on President Biden appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a lawyer, Pildes has successfully argued voting-rights and election-law cases before the United States Supreme Court, and was part of the Emmy-nominated NBC breaking-news team for coverage of the 2000 Bush v. Gore contest. We discuss his recent articles and posts here:“The Age of Political Fragmentation,” Journal of Democracy (2021).“Election Law in an Age of Distrust,” Stanford Law Review Online (2022).Election Law Blog on Moore v. Harper here and here.We also discuss: Kate Shaw, Oral Argument in Moore v. Harper and the Perils of Finding “Compromise” on the Independent State Legislature Theory (Just Security)  Jed's twitter thread on Moore v. Harper and Democratic lawyers making problematic concessions here, relating to a proposed solution against remedies from Will Baude and former judge Michael McConnell here (the Atlantic).

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Lisa Leaverton, Ann Luther, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Pam Person, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn Panel moderator: John Brautigam, an attorney and consultant with over 25 years of experience in campaign finance and election law, public policy, advocacy, and legal representation. From 2004 to 2008 he served in the Maine legislature and was House Chairman of the Insurance and Financial Services Committee. Prior to his tenure in the legislature Mr. Brautigam served as Assistant Attorney General. He previously served as legal counsel successfully defending the constitutionality of the 1996 reforms to Maine campaign finance laws, including the Maine Clean Election Act. Brautigam is counsel for the League of Women Voters of Maine. Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics This month: Many legal scholars say that the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v Harper, involving the Independent State Legislature Theory, could be one of the most important election law cases for the future of federal elections. If adopted by the Court, the most extreme versions of the theory could destabilize elections. But the Court could adopt a more limited, less disruptive version. Or the Court could decide not to adopt any version. We’ll introduce this issue and some of the potential implications of the case Moore v. Harper to be decided in 2023. Guest/s: Derek T. Muller, holds Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence at the University of Iowa College of Law Eliza Sweren-Becker, counsel in the Voting Rights & Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice To learn more about this topic: There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory | The Atlantic, October, 2022 Moore v. Harper, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice, August 2022 State Legislature Seeks Unchecked Power over Elections in Moore v. Harper | League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters blog, August 2022 Unpacking the Left's Disinformation Campaign about Moore v. Harper | National Review, August, 2022 The Next Big Threat to American Democracy Is Headed to the Supreme Court | The New Republic, August 2022 Is Democracy Constitutional? | The Atlantic, July 2022 Richard Pildes' on Election Law Blog, July 2022 Derek Muller on Moore v. Harper and Independent State Legislature Doctrine | The Lawfare Podcast: July, 2022 About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 10/21/22: What's At Stake in Moore v. Harper? Gerrymandering and More first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Lisa Leaverton, Ann Luther, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Pam Person, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn Panel moderator: John Brautigam, an attorney and consultant with over 25 years of experience in campaign finance and election law, public policy, advocacy, and legal representation. From 2004 to 2008 he served in the Maine legislature and was House Chairman of the Insurance and Financial Services Committee. Prior to his tenure in the legislature Mr. Brautigam served as Assistant Attorney General. He previously served as legal counsel successfully defending the constitutionality of the 1996 reforms to Maine campaign finance laws, including the Maine Clean Election Act. Brautigam is counsel for the League of Women Voters of Maine. Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics This month: Many legal scholars say that the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v Harper, involving the Independent State Legislature Theory, could be one of the most important election law cases for the future of federal elections. If adopted by the Court, the most extreme versions of the theory could destabilize elections. But the Court could adopt a more limited, less disruptive version. Or the Court could decide not to adopt any version. We’ll introduce this issue and some of the potential implications of the case Moore v. Harper to be decided in 2023. Guest/s: Derek T. Muller, holds Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence at the University of Iowa College of Law Eliza Sweren-Becker, counsel in the Voting Rights & Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice To learn more about this topic: There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory | The Atlantic, October, 2022 Moore v. Harper, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice, August 2022 State Legislature Seeks Unchecked Power over Elections in Moore v. Harper | League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters blog, August 2022 Unpacking the Left's Disinformation Campaign about Moore v. Harper | National Review, August, 2022 The Next Big Threat to American Democracy Is Headed to the Supreme Court | The New Republic, August 2022 Is Democracy Constitutional? | The Atlantic, July 2022 Richard Pildes' on Election Law Blog, July 2022 Derek Muller on Moore v. Harper and Independent State Legislature Doctrine | The Lawfare Podcast: July, 2022 About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 10/21/22: What's At Stake in Moore v. Harper? Gerrymandering and More first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is the law that dictates the congressional procedure for certifying Electoral College results in a presidential election. Congress passed it in response to the presidential election of 1876, where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states. The law is also implicated in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Now, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced a bill they say will fix the Electoral Count Act. Rick Pildes of NYU Law and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law co-authored a piece for the Election Law Blog called “Why Congress should swiftly enact the Senate's bipartisan ECA reform bill,” and today they joinhost Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the pros and cons of the bill. Listen to our first episode on the Electoral Count Act with Ned Foley and Brad Smith from January 2022. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Courts Ordered Undated PA Mail Ballots to Be Counted; 3 Counties RefusedToday's Links:Marc Elias essay on Democracy Docket:  A Constitutional Crisis Is Brewing in PennsylvaniaProf. Derek Muller, Univ. of Iowa on Election Law Blog:  Is mandamus appropriate in the Pennsylvania certification dispute, Chapman v. Berks County Board of Elections? Phildelphia Inquirer  Pennsylvania's in an election results certification crisis over the primary, and the state just sued three countiesGroups Taking Action:   ACLU of PA,  League of Women Voters of PA, Democracy Docket You're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.Remember the undated mail ballot cases in Pennsylvania?  Federal courts mandated the ballots be counted, overriding state law.  Sixty-four counties followed the court's order after the May 17th primary.  Three counties did not. Pennsylvania's legislature passed a law after the 2020 election disallowing the counting of mail ballots with no date.   Ultimately, the Third Circuit Federal Court ruled in a local county case that the date was immaterial, and the ballots must be counted. In a similar case during the state primary between Dr. Oz/David McCormick the courts also ordered undated ballots to be counted.   But three counties have refused to comply, arguing they believed the state lacks the power to force these kinds of counting orders.  A Democracy Docket commentary by voting rights attorney Marc Elias raises questions on what this could mean for future elections.  If election officials put partisan aims over their duty to run a fair election, wielding rules like Pennsylvania's “no-date” rule to keep votes from counting could be used to suppress votes and shift elections.   Lurking in the shadows of all such state voting rights cases is the North Carolina U.S. Supreme Court case which may test the Independent State Legislature theory, giving state legislatures ultimate control over elections – and rules like not counting undated ballots. The Elias Democracy Docket essay and another Election Law Blog article by Professor Derek Muller on the subject are linked at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgGranny D said “Democracy is not something we have, it's something we DO.”  For the American Democracy Minute, I'm Brian Beihl.

From Hanging Chads to The Precinct Strategy – How Elections & Democracy Hang In the Balance With Election Law Professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, Co-Director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center and Host Richard Levick of LEVICK: Professor Richard Hasen is the Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine and Co-Director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center. He is a nationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance regulation and is the co-author of leading casebooks in election law and remedies; named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by The National Law Journal; author of the recently released book Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics—and How to Cure It and writes the often-quoted Election Law Blog. Professor Hasen speaks with host Richard Levick of LEVICK and discusses election law from the Florida election recount through the Steve Bannon designed “Precinct Strategy,” a four part campaign to be unleashed for the 2022 election cycle which includes election-denier poll watchers, on-call GOP lawyers, party friendly district attorneys and loyalist Boards of Canvassers, all designed to intimidate voters and drive down Democratic participation. With Moore v. Harper likely headed to the Supreme Court in 2023, which would give profound powers to the states to curb voting, this show has never been more timely.

FEC v. Cruz SCOTUS Ruling on Campaign FinanceToday's Links:SCOTUS OpinionArticles on FEC v. Cruz:  Talking Points Memo, Election Law Blog, The GuardianCampaign Finance Reform Groups:  Campaign Legal Center, Public Citizen, Brennan CenterYou're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping your government by and for the people.You may have missed it, but there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision on campaign finance last week.  One of the remaining provisions in the 2002 McCain–Feingold Campaign Finance Act, kept candidates making loans to their campaign late in the election cycle from paying themselves back more than $250,000 after the election.  It was intended to keep candidates from personally benefiting – or being influenced– from donations after the election. FEC vs. Cruz – yes, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz – contested this rule.  Senator Cruz contended that it infringes on potential expenditures by candidates, and limits their self-expression. The Court “ruled that this was a “great burden” on free speech and wasn't justified by the potential for corruption. The court cited the 2014 McCutcheon case, which struck down the combined limits which could be made to candidates, parties and political action committees.  In FEC v. Cruz, the court said, “However well intentioned such proposals may be, the First Amendment—as this Court has repeatedly emphasized—prohibits such attempts to tamper with the ‘right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.'   The justices were split – you guessed it – along partisan lines.A May 17th article in The Atlantic Daily by David Graham suggests that despite overwhelming public opinion that there should be limits on campaign funding, there is no appetite on one side of the aisle in Congress to curb it.  We have more information and links to ways to take action on money in politics at our website, AmericanDemocracyMinute.org/  Granny D said, “Democracy is not something we have, it's something we DO.” For the American Democracy Minute, I'm Brian Beihl.

Richard L. Hasen is one of the nation's foremost experts on election law. He teaches law and political science at the University of California-Irvine. He is co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center. He runs the Election Law Blog. And he has written numerous previous books, including The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, in 2012, Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court and the Distortion of American Elections in 2016, and Election Meltdown in 2020.Hasen's new book - "Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics - and How to Cure It" - lays out a diagnosis of the problem. "The survival of American democracy depends on the success of free and fair periodic elections in which voters have access to reliable information to make ballot decisions that are consistent with their preferences and interests, and where the losers accept the results as legitimate and agree to fight another day."The entire second half of Hasen's book is a fairly detailed examination of potential ways to ameliorate the problem. Several are legal and regulatory, and then a few have more to do with civil society. In the legal arena, Hasen says that the U.S. Supreme Court is a likely obstacle to several reforms. " Hasen said the court's conservative justices have an “outmoded” view of how to apply the First Amendment's free speech protections that relies on a “marketplace of ideas model in which citizens debate ideas publicly and the truth rises to the top.” Hasen is skeptical that such a purely self-regulating marketplace of ideas has ever existed, but he is adamant that it does not now. “The marketplace of ideas is experiencing market failure,” he writes.He says that the First Amendment is a vital “bulwark against government censorship,” but adds that “the greatest danger today is a public that cannot determine truth or make voting decisions that are based on accurate information, and a public susceptible to political manipulation through repeatedly amplified, data-targeted, election related content, some of it false or misleading.”In this conversation, we talk a little bit about some of his proposed reforms, and why the Supreme Court's conservative justices are a likely obstacle to them. And we also discuss why decisions by social media platforms to remove public figures is not, in his view, censorship. You can listen to Rick's previous appearance on "The Long Game," from July 2020, here. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/thelonggame. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Voter suppression is serious but one of the leading election law experts in the country says "Election Subversion" is the greater threat to American Democracy. In this episode, he explains what it is and why it's a "DEFCON 5" level emergency. Rick Hasen is Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine and was a CNN Election Law Analyst in 2020. He runs the Election Law Blog. Today's Bill Press Pod is supported by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. In additional to representing workers in our grocery stores, pharmacies and food processing plants, the UFCW sponsors a wide range of valuable programs in communities around the country. More information at UFCW.org .See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

00:00 Trump's Party Cannot Survive in a Multiracial Democracy, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-15/trump-s-party-cannot-survive-in-a-multiracial-democracy 02:00 What Is Trump Playing At? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/opinion/trump-concession-transition.html 07:30 Paul Gottfried: What the hell is going on with this election? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeT0L7sUFsk 10:00 Trump is the best conservative president of the past 60 years, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/29/trump-is-one-best-conservative-presidents-modern-history-if-you-turn-sound-off/ 23:00 The only Right that makes sense now 27:00 WP: How we can be confident that Trump's voter fraud claims are baloney, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/10/we-can-be-confident-trump-voter-fraud-claims-are-baloney/ 34:00 Trump Needs Three Consecutive Hail Mary Passes, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trump-needs-three-consecutive-hail-mary-passes/617063/ 39:00 Biden's covid strategy 41:50 American regionalism 44:00 Jeffrey Toobin fired by The New Yorker 52:00 Trump suffers embarrassing losses in court, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/ 53:20 John Heilemann really really like Nicole Wallace 57:00 Inappropriate Applications of Benford's Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=135312 1:05:00 Dooovid joins 1:06:00 Marc B. Shapiro: My Latest Book (Part 24), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeSiGWt-Bo8 1:07:00 R. Dovid Feinstein dies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovid_Feinstein 1:11:00 R. Jonathan Sacks dies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks 1:15:30 When R. Sacks asked Marc Shapiro to become a public intellectual 1:23:00 From the Haredi perspective, Jews are subjects of gentile governments, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acn7w5ADP04 1:24:00 From the Modern Orthodox perspective, Jews are citizens with equal rights in the USA 1:37:00 The ethical cost of Jewish communal support for Donald Trump, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-ethical-cost-of-jewish-communal-support-for-donald-trump/ 1:41:00 RABBI STEINMAN AND THE MESSIAH, https://seforimblog.com/2020/11/rabbi-steinman-and-the-messiah-part-1/ 1:42:00 Are Jews Waiting For The Messiah?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=135250 2:00:00 Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: Voter Fraud: A Red Herring, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=135319 2:10:00 From Steve Bannon To Millennial Millie: Facebook, YouTube Struggle With Live Video, https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933235773/from-steve-bannon-to-millennial-millie-facebook-youtube-struggle-with-live-video 2:15:30 How to dress like its 1896, https://www.instagram.com/your_sunny_flowers/?hl=en 2:41:00 The New Normal: By Any Means Necessary, https://www.takimag.com/article/the-new-normal-by-any-means-necessary/ Election Law Blog, https://electionlawblog.org/ The Myth of Voter Fraud, https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Voter-Fraud-Lorraine-Minnite-ebook/dp/B071GP849Z Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, https://www.amazon.com/Election-Meltdown-Distrust-American-Democracy/dp/0300248199 Polls, questions, super chats: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Periscope: https://www.pscp.tv/lukeford/1nAJEAnVRDaJL

Professor Rick Hasen of UCI Law and the Election Law Blog joins us to talk all things election. Following up on his new book Election Meltdown we cover dangerous media expectations, vote-by-mail rules, how ballots are processed, the "Blue Shift" and the impact COVID is having on an already strained election system. Special thanks to our sponsors, Paper Software and LexisNexis® InterAction®.

Professor Rick Hasen of UCI Law and the Election Law Blog joins us to talk all things election. Following up on his new book Election Meltdown we cover dangerous media expectations, vote-by-mail rules, how ballots are processed, the "Blue Shift" and the impact COVID is having on an already strained election system. Special thanks to our sponsors, Paper Software and LexisNexis® InterAction®.

On this week's episode, Jason Harrow and Adam Eichen of Equal Citizens talk with election law expert Rick Hasen about the impact of COVID-19 on our democracy. Rick is a professor at UC Irvine and the author of the Election Law Blog and the new and eerily-prescient book Election Meltdown. Rick discusses the importance of expanding voting from home and absentee balloting, whether elections can be "cancelled," and other impacts the coronavirus will have on our elections. Please consider supporting this podcast on Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens

With the 2020 campaign season underway, some are growing concerned about the fairness and accuracy of elections. The news is dominated with stories of Russian-based Internet hackers, voter suppression, and flaws in the campaign finance system. Given all this talk of “stolen” or “rigged” elections, can we be confident in the integrity of the results? Rick Hasen joins Julian Zelizer in this week’s episode to discuss the state of our election system. Hasen’s latest book, “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy,” examines the country’s decline in trust in our elections and proposes possible fixes. Hasen is the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. His research focuses on election law and campaign finance regulation. Hasen previously served as a founding co-editor of Election Law Journal and has authored more than 100 articles on election law issues, which have been published in numerous journals including the Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and Supreme Court Review. He is also the founder of Election Law Blog and the author of “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.”

It’s time for a democracy check. With the Trump Impeachment Trial over and the 2020 presidential primaries in full bloom, I’ve been thinking a lot about what I imagine many other people are wondering, too: How’s our democracy doing? Are America’s democratic norms still valid? How much more can our institutions take? And this was even before the Roger Stone sentencing reduction news broke. So I decided to dedicate the next two conversations to the topic. The first one looks at democracy itself – coming out of only the third impeachment trial in our 250-plus year history, how stable are we? The second looks forward: If free elections fill the center of a true democracy, how stable is our election process? Both conversations are with previous podcast guests. Today’s is with the two Harvard professors  -- Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt -- who I talked with two years ago and who first brought the issue to national prominence with their New York Times bestseller “How Democracies Die.” As I relistened to our previous podcast – and as I note in this one – it’s crazy how predictive they were about the way things could go. The second podcast will be with Rick Hasen, UC Irvine Law and Political Science professor, creator of the Election Law Blog, and author of the new book “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy.” Some background on Levitsky and Ziblatt, Professors of Government at Harvard. Levitsky’s research interests include political parties, authoritarianism and democratization, and weak and informal institutions, with a focus on Latin America. Ziblatt’s interests include democratization, state-building, comparative politics, and historical political economy. His focus is on European political development.  Together they’ve spent more than 20 years studying the breakdown of democracies around the globe – places like Germany, Italy, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, among others. Among my questions to them was an update to one of my previous questions: After so much work on shaky democracies in other countries, can they believe even now that somehow our country has become their new laboratory. One editorial note: As you’ll hear, near the end of our conversation, I got Roger Stone – Department of Justice headline alert on my phone just as my guests were talking about Attorney General Barr and the ways in which various manipulations of legal systems can impact a democracy’s health. Talk about real life proving the point in real time. While I interrupted the conversation to ask Daniel and Steven’s reaction, the news had just broken and no one had had time to fully consider what it could mean. And one listening note: Daniel took our call via Skype from Germany. Sometimes his audio is a little digitized, but that’s the price of primary research. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

Can American Democracy survive the 2020 elections and beyond?   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Richard L. Hasen, of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, to discuss his latest book, Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy. In today’s conversation, Aaron and Richard are talking about the integrity of our voting system, the health of our democracy, and the biggest reasons why Americans increasingly distrust the voting process.   As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, Americans on both sides of the political aisle are worrying about how the 2020 elections will shake out. Richard and Aaron breakdown why this is, what there is to worry about, and why it is we have seen such a decline in trust. A leading expert in election law, Richard illustrates the four principle reasons for this increasing mistrust and explains how we got here while offering bipartisan solutions. Throughout today’s episode, Aaron and Richard talk about voter suppression, heightened suspicion, inflammatory rhetoric, incompetence in election administration, cyber security, the myth of voter fraud, and more.     Dr. Richard Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine, and is a nationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance regulation, writing as well in the areas of legislation and statutory interpretation, remedies, and torts. From 2001-2010 he served as founding co-editor of the quarterly peer-reviewed publication, Election Law Journal and is the co-author of leading casebooks in election law and remedies. Richard is also the author of over 100 articles on election law issues, published in numerous journals including the Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and Supreme Court Review. He was elected to The American Law Institute in 2009 and serves as Reporter on the ALI’s law reform project: Restatement (Third) of Torts: Remedies and is an adviser on the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Concluding Provisions.   A graduate of both UCLA and Berkeley, Professor Hasen was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by The National Law Journal in 2013, and one of the Top 100 lawyers in California in 2005 and 2016 by the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal. His op-eds and commentaries have appeared in many publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, and Slate.    What if a blackout happens on election day in one of the country’s swing states? Or what if there was a mistake when calculating electronic ballots? Listen in as Richard and Aaron contemplate these terrifying scenarios and others as they discuss the principle dangers that could threaten the 2020 elections, as well as our voting system as a whole.     To learn more about Richard, please visit his bio page at UCI Law here. To check out Richard’s book, Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, please click here. You can check out Richard’s blog, Election Law Blog, here. To find more information about Richard’s book and his upcoming book tour, please click here.   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Richard L. Hasen     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Rick Hasen, founder of the Election Law Blog, explains how we got here: Shrinking away from the hard election reforms, ignoring the easy reforms, and enacting short-sighted remedies. Hasen is a professor at UC Irvine and a Slate contributor.  This episode is brought to you by Merrill Lynch. Get started today at ML.com/you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rick Hasen, founder of the Election Law Blog, explains how we got here: Shrinking away from the hard election reforms, ignoring the easy reforms, and enacting short-sighted remedies. Hasen is a professor at UC Irvine and a Slate contributor.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Perhaps this is how the Framers wanted it, but has there ever been a time where more issues with the potential to more deeply divide us – has there ever been a time where more of them seemed so likely to head to the same place: The U.S. Supreme Court?I’m talking about the 2nd Amendment, and the inevitable gun rights issues surely to come out of the growing #enoughisenough movement. I’m talking about gerrymandering, the crazy geographical games that determine who sits in our state legislatures and Congress – that’s already in front of the Justices. And, lurking there in the distance, the potential biggest of them all: Can a sitting President be indicted?And yet, more and more, the U.S. Supreme Court feels less like a beacon of neutrality and more like yet another politicized branch of the U.S. government.How’d we get here? As you’ll hear in my conversation with Rick Hasen, the person we might want to thank for that isn’t even here anymore: Antonin Scalia.Rick Hasen is the Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. He also runs the Election Law Blog. His latest book is: “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.”Hasen presents a new view of Scalia – not a political one – but a critical one, looking at how this strict originalist – this justice who argued that the Constitution’s meaning can be found through the original words – may not always have practiced what he preached.More directly: Hasen also argues, as you’ll hear, that Scalia was the Donald Trump – or the Newt Gingrich – of the Court. He was the ultimate disrupter, and much of the politicization the Court faces today traces directly to Scalia himself.

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks to Rick Hasen, a leading election law scholar and purveyor of the Election Law Blog, about what's going on at the voting booth, possible campaign finance law violations by both Trump and Clinton in the 2016 cycle, and Justice Scalia, who is the subject of Rick's new book, The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption. Jason and Rick start the discussion by looking at this Administration's record on voting rights, including its positions on Voter ID laws and voter registration laws. They then discuss possible campaign finance law violations in three "scandals" arising out of the 2016 presidential campaign cycle: the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians, the Clinton campaign's funding of the Steele dossier, and Trump's attorney's $130,000 payment made in October 2016 to Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement. The discussion concludes with a close look at the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia. Rick explains why he thinks Scalia was a justice full of contradictions, and why Scalia's decisions were not necessarily as consistently guided by neutral principles as the Justice often claimed they were. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When the Supreme Court term opens next month, perhaps no issue will be more urgent – and more complicated – than voting rights. One of the first cases the justices will hear is Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to the 2011 redrawing of district lines in Wisconsin. While the Court has struck down racially-motivated gerrymanders in the past, no election map has ever been rejected as a purely partisan gerrymander. And recent developments have some court watchers concerned that Justice Anthony Kennedy may still not be ready to do that. Our guest this episode is Richard Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and curator of the must-read Election Law Blog. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When the Supreme Court term opens next month, perhaps no issue will be more urgent – and more complicated – than voting rights. One of the first cases the justices will hear is Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to the 2011 redrawing of district lines in Wisconsin. While the Court has struck down racially-motivated gerrymanders in the past, no election map has ever been rejected as a purely partisan gerrymander. And recent developments have some court watchers concerned that Justice Anthony Kennedy may still not be ready to do that. Our guest this episode is Richard Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and curator of the must-read Election Law Blog. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine, and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discuss a Monday decision by the Supreme Court to take on a case deciding whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan they violate the Constitution. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine, and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discuss a Monday decision by the Supreme Court to take on a case deciding whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan they violate the Constitution. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Rick Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine School of Law and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School, discuss an announcement by the Justice Department that it was dropping a crucial objection to Texas' script voter ID law. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Rick Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine School of Law and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School, discuss an announcement by the Justice Department that it was dropping a crucial objection to Texas' script voter ID law. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine School of Law and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School, discuss an announcement by the Justice Department that it was dropping a crucial objection to Texas' script voter ID law. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine School of Law and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School, discuss an announcement by the Justice Department that it was dropping a crucial objection to Texas' script voter ID law. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The ELB Podcast: Episode 1 Interview with Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot by Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog

Elie and Joe speak to Rick Hasen, professor at UC Irvine and author of Election Law Blog. Professor Hasen explains the recent Supreme Court redistricting case, future cases regarding voting rights, and talks about the relationship between the Roberts Court and disenfranchisement. Joe argues for hope while it seems like Elie believes we should be led by a Platonic Philosopher King.

On Ep. 4 of Amicus, a pre-election special. Dahlia sits down with UC Irvine law professor Rick Hasen, founder of Election Law Blog, to survey the landscape of state voter ID laws. They consider the effect of recent headlines on voters' confidence in elections, as well as the enduring curiosity of judicial elections in America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices