Podcast appearances and mentions of Joshua A Douglas

Voting is an incredibly important part of being an American — not just every four years, and not just for the sticker! In this episode of Grown-Up Stuff, hosts Lea Palmieri and Matt Stillo speak with Joshua A. Douglas, a professor of law at the University of Kentucky, as well as an author and podcaster, who explains the way voting works in the US, from the polling booth to the country’s capitol, and what we can do as citizens to ensure we’re getting involved and staying involved in democracy for all. To learn more about Josh, visit https://joshuaadouglas.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

The complicated history of how America elects presidents and why this matters to the next election. An engaging mix of history and political science, Distorting Democracy will awaken Americans to the perils of our system by unveiling the Electoral College's origins, history, and current problems. This book demonstrates that the system has no principled foundation, that it has changed dramatically over its 230-year history, and that it now threatens the legitimacy of our political system.The book is divided into three ground-breaking sections: Part I tells the story of the Electoral College's origins in the Constitutional Convention. Defenders of the Electoral College tend to invoke gauzy images of the Founding Fathers infusing our system with their unique, timeless wisdom. But history tells a very different story. The Founding Fathers faced a mess; they responded by creating a mess. Part II traces two hundred years of innovations-many of them subtle but highly consequential-to the plan described in the Constitution. As the new nation rapidly descended into bitter political conflict, many of the framers themselves, driven by their partisan interests, massaged the Electoral College into a form that differed profoundly from their founding intentions. Subsequent generations tinkered similarly with the systems' possibilities, always exploiting its potential for political gain. Part III examines how our strange presidential election system has produced frustrating results with increasing frequency in recent elections. Who can forget the Bush-Gore contest of 2000, when the results hinged on "hanging chads" and fewer than 1,500 votes in Florida? Americans endured weeks of a single-state recount, only to have the Supreme Court halt the process and hand the election to George W. Bush. Bush won the Electoral College by a single vote, but Al Gore captured 500,000 more popular votes. Then, in 2016, Donald Trump stunned the world with a substantial Electoral College victory of 302-227, though nearly 3 million more Americans preferred his opponent, and roughly 7 million voted for a third-party candidate. The system increasingly returns results that conflict with the expressed wishes of a majority of voters, a product of our hyper-polarized landscape and unique geopolitical distribution of party loyalists. The system cannot improve until we learn the complicated history of the Electoral College and the lessons it holds for us today. "Every American should read this book. It brings facts and clarity to a debate that too often relies on conjecture about the Electoral College's purposes and ill-informed arguments about how it actually operates. The lessons herein are immense." -- Joshua A. Douglas, Ashland, Inc-Spears Distinguished Research Professor of Law, University of KentuckyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

The complicated history of how America elects presidents and why this matters to the next election. An engaging mix of history and political science, Distorting Democracy will awaken Americans to the perils of our system by unveiling the Electoral College's origins, history, and current problems. This book demonstrates that the system has no principled foundation, that it has changed dramatically over its 230-year history, and that it now threatens the legitimacy of our political system.The book is divided into three ground-breaking sections: Part I tells the story of the Electoral College's origins in the Constitutional Convention. Defenders of the Electoral College tend to invoke gauzy images of the Founding Fathers infusing our system with their unique, timeless wisdom. But history tells a very different story. The Founding Fathers faced a mess; they responded by creating a mess. Part II traces two hundred years of innovations-many of them subtle but highly consequential-to the plan described in the Constitution. As the new nation rapidly descended into bitter political conflict, many of the framers themselves, driven by their partisan interests, massaged the Electoral College into a form that differed profoundly from their founding intentions. Subsequent generations tinkered similarly with the systems' possibilities, always exploiting its potential for political gain. Part III examines how our strange presidential election system has produced frustrating results with increasing frequency in recent elections. Who can forget the Bush-Gore contest of 2000, when the results hinged on "hanging chads" and fewer than 1,500 votes in Florida? Americans endured weeks of a single-state recount, only to have the Supreme Court halt the process and hand the election to George W. Bush. Bush won the Electoral College by a single vote, but Al Gore captured 500,000 more popular votes. Then, in 2016, Donald Trump stunned the world with a substantial Electoral College victory of 302-227, though nearly 3 million more Americans preferred his opponent, and roughly 7 million voted for a third-party candidate. The system increasingly returns results that conflict with the expressed wishes of a majority of voters, a product of our hyper-polarized landscape and unique geopolitical distribution of party loyalists. The system cannot improve until we learn the complicated history of the Electoral College and the lessons it holds for us today. "Every American should read this book. It brings facts and clarity to a debate that too often relies on conjecture about the Electoral College's purposes and ill-informed arguments about how it actually operates. The lessons herein are immense." -- Joshua A. Douglas, Ashland, Inc-Spears Distinguished Research Professor of Law, University of KentuckyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Host Cyrus Webb welcomes back author Joshua A. Douglas to Conversations LIVE to discuss his new book THE COURT V. THE VOTERS--- and what he hopes readers take away from it. 

Semafor politics reporter Shelby Talcott joins The New Abnormal this week to discuss the state of the 2024 race. Plus! A conversation with author Joshua A. Douglas about his new book, “The Court v. the Voters: The Troubling Story of How the Supreme Court Has Undermined Voting Rights.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lauren Boebert's fundraising lags Democratic challenger Adam Frisch | Rep. Yadira Caraveo (D-CO) raises $450K as her GOP challenger has yet to start fundraising | Anti-LGBTQ laws are being struck down around the country for violating First Amendment rights | Utah Supreme Court considers challenge to GOP gerrymandered Congressional map | Denver Mayor Mike Johnston declares a state of emergency around homelessness | Trombone Shorty & Orleans Avenue, Ziggy Marley, Mavis Staples, Robert Randolph Band play Vail on July 24.Song playsIntro by hostWelcome to High Country - politics in the American West. My name is Sean Diller; regular listeners might know me from Heartland Pod's Talking Politics, every Monday.Support this show and all the work in the Heartland POD universe by going to heartlandpod.com and clicking the link for Patreon, or go to Patreon.com/HeartlandPod to sign up. Membership starts at $1/month, with even more extra shows and special access at the higher levels. No matter the level you choose, your membership helps us create these independent shows as we work together to change the conversation.Alright! Let's get into it: COLORADO NEWSLINE:Lauren Boebert's Democratic challenger raised 3x what she did in the 2nd quarterBY: SARA WILSON - JULY 17, 2023 4:07 PMDemocrat Adam Frisch raised over three times what Republican incumbent Rep. Lauren Boebert did over the last three months in Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, as the seat appears likely to be a competitive — and expensive — race in 2024.In 2022, Boebert beat Frisch for a second term by 546 votes. Both candidates are actively fundraising with 16 months until a general election rematch.Frisch reported raising about $2.6 million during the most recent campaign finance reporting period, which ran from April to June, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. The former Aspen City Council member spent about $1.4 million and has about $2.5 million in cash on hand.During his 2022 campaign, Frisch raised about $6.7 million, including personal loans, and spent about $6.4 million.Boebert reported raising over $800,000 from April to June. She spent a bit over $400,000 and has about $1.4 million in the bank.In 2022, Boebert raised almost $8 million and spent about $7.4 million.Both candidates brought in a large amount of donations under $200 that don't need to be individually listed on reports — about 66% of Frisch's cash and 47% of Boebert's.Frisch listed about 1,400 individual donations from Colorado residents for a total of about $280,000. Boebert listed about 600 donations from people in Colorado, raising about $150,000.Both Boebert and Frisch spent heavily on advertising during the quarter. Frisch reported spending over $600,000 on contact list acquisition and digital advertising and another $290,000 on direct mail. Boebert spent $52,000 on digital advertising and over $100,000 on direct mail. She reported spending over $28,000 on campaign-related travel during the quarter.The 3rd Congressional District encompasses the Western Slope, San Luis Valley and swings east to Pueblo County.In other districts - Democratic Rep. Yadira Caraveo in the 8th Congressional District raised about $450,000 during the quarter. She spent about $120,000 and has about $625,000 in cash on hand.Republican Scott James has announced his candidacy but has not reported any raising or spending so far this cycle.The National Republican Congressional Committee listed the district as a target race for 2024, priming it for an influx of national party attention and resources. At the same time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will also likely pour money into the race, listing Caraveo as a potential vulnerable freshman member.The 8th Congressional District includes Denver's northeast suburbs into Weld County.ARIZONA MIRROR:.Anti-LGBTQ laws in the US are getting struck down for limiting free speechDR. MARK SATTAJULY 13, 2023 7:11 AMAnti-LGBTQ laws passed in 2023 included measures to deny gender-affirming care to trans children. Photo by Mario Tama | Getty Images via The ConversationNearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in the U.S. in 2023. Many of those bills seek to reduce or eliminate gender-affirming care for transgender minors or to ban drag performances in places where minors could view them.Most of those bills have not become law. But many of those that have did not survive legal scrutiny when challenged in court.A notable feature of these rulings is how many rely on the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In several of the decisions, judges used harsh language to describe what they deemed to be assaults on a fundamental American right.Here's a summary of some of the most notable legal outcomes:Drag performancesSeveral states passed laws aimed at restricting drag performances. These laws were quickly challenged in court. So far, judges have sided with those challenging these laws.On June 2, 2023, a federal judge permanently enjoined Tennessee's attempt to limit drag performances by restricting “adult entertainment” featuring “male or female impersonators.” When a law is permanently enjoined, it can no longer be enforced unless an appeals court reverses the decision.The judge ruled on broad grounds that Tennessee's law violated freedom of speech, writing that it “reeks with constitutional maladies of vagueness and overbreadth fatal to statutes that regulate First Amendment rights.” He also ruled that the law was passed for the “impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech” and that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which occurs when a law regulates speech from a disfavored perspective.Three weeks later, a federal judge granted a temporary injunction against Florida's anti-drag law on similar grounds.And in Utah, a federal judge required the city of St. George to grant a permit for a drag show, ruling that the city had applied an ordinance in a discriminatory manner in order to prevent the family-friendly drag show from happening. As in the other cases, the judge's ruling was based on First Amendment precedent.Gender-affirming careOn June 20, 2023, a federal judge permanently enjoined an Arkansas law, passed in 2021 over the veto of then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson, preventing transgender minors from receiving various kinds of gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.The judge held that Arkansas' law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause – which ensures laws are applied equally regardless of social characteristics like race or gender – because the law discriminated on the basis of sex.Arkansas claimed its law was passed in order to protect children and to safeguard medical ethics. The judge agreed that these were legitimate state interests, but rejected Arkansas' claim that its law furthered those ends.The judge also held that Arkansas' law violated the First Amendment free speech rights of medical care providers because the law would have prevented them from providing referrals for gender transition medical treatment.During June 2023, federal judges in Florida and Indiana granted temporary injunctions against enforcement of similar state laws. This means that these laws cannot be enforced until a full trial is conducted – and only if that trial results in a ruling that these laws are constitutional.Free speech for the LGBTQ communityIn striking down these unconstitutional state laws on First Amendment grounds, many judges went out of their way to reinforce the point that freedom of speech protects views about sexual orientation and gender identity that may be unpopular in conservative areas.In his ruling on the St. George, Utah case, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer stressed that “Public spaces are public spaces. Public spaces are not private spaces. Public spaces are not majority spaces. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that all citizens, popular or not, majority or minority, conventional or unconventional, have access to public spaces for public expression.”Nuffer also noted that “Public officials and the city governments in which they serve are trustees of constitutional rights for all citizens.” Protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens includes protecting the constitutional rights of members of the LGBTQ community and of other gender-nonconforming people.Free speech rights also extend to those who want to use speech in order to help promote the well-being of LGBTQ people. In ruling that Arkansas' law violated the First Amendment, Judge Jay Moody stated that the state law “prevents doctors from informing their patients where gender transition treatment may be available” and that it “effectively bans their ability to speak to patients about these treatments because the physician is not allowed to tell their patient where it is available.” For this reason, he held that the law violated the First Amendment.As additional anti-LGBTQ state laws are challenged in court, judges are likely to continue to use the First Amendment to show how such laws fail to respect Americans' fundamental free speech rights.This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The ConversationNEW YORK TIMES:Utah G.O.P.'s Map Carved Up Salt Lake Democrats to dilute their power. Is that legal?The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday over whether a congressional map drawn to dilute Democratic votes was subject to judicial review, or a political issue beyond its reach.By Michael WinesJuly 11, 2023Last week, Utah's Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of arguments put forward by the State Legislature that it had essentially unreviewable power to draw a map of the state's congressional districts that diluted the votes of Democrats.The Republican-controlled Legislature approved a map in 2021 that carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, the state's most populous county, and scattered its voters among the state's four U.S. House districts, all of which were predominantly Republican.The lawmakers acted after repealing a law — enacted by Utah voters in a 2018 ballot initiative — that outlawed political maps unduly favoring a candidate or political party.The Legislature's map was widely acknowledged at the time to be a partisan gerrymander, including by the Republican governor, Spencer J. Cox, who noted at the time that both parties often produced skewed maps.The question before the justices on Tuesday was whether the state's courts could hear a lawsuit challenging the Legislature's map, or whether partisan maps were a political issue beyond their jurisdiction. It was not clear when the court would hand down a ruling.Much of Tuesday's hearing — which was streamed on the state court's website — focused on the Legislature's repeal of the 2018 ballot initiative, given the provision in the State Constitution that all political power resides with the people and that they have the right “to alter and reform” their government.Mark Gaber is a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy law firm based in Washington that represents the plaintiffs in the case before the court. He said, “the Legislature has for decades engaged in this anti-democratic distortion of the process. And the people said: ‘We have had enough. We are going to alter and reform our government and recognize that we hold the political power in this state.'”Taylor Meehan, a lawyer with the law firm Consovoy McCarthy who is representing the Legislature, said Utah citizens had many ways to exercise political influence even after the repeal. “The people can advocate for a constitutional amendment,” Ms. Meehan said. “The people also can elect and lobby and propose ideas to their Legislature. The Legislature will still be politically accountable for whether they vote maps up or down.”Chief Justice Matthew Durrant questioned the claim. “That seems like an empty promise,” he said. “Ultimately, under the system you're suggesting, the Legislature is always going to have the final say.”In court filings, legislators said that the State Constitution gave them exclusive authority to draw political maps, and that the plaintiffs were trying to impose “illusory standards of political equality” on the mapmaking process.With the U.S. Supreme Court having barred federal courts from deciding partisan gerrymander cases, state courts are becoming a crucial battleground for opponents of skewed maps. Joshua A. Douglas, an expert on state constitution protections for voting at the University of Kentucky, said the growing body of legal precedents in state gerrymandering cases was important because many state constitutions shared similar protections for elections and voters, often derived from one another.Courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Alaska, New York and, last week, New Mexico have ruled that partisan gerrymanders can be unconstitutional. So have courts in Ohio and North Carolina. However, the Ohio court proved unable to force the legislature to comply with its rulings, and the North Carolina decision was overturned in April after elections shifted the court's majority from Democratic to Republican.The Kentucky Supreme Court will hear a challenge to that state's congressional and legislative maps in September. And a lawsuit contesting an extreme Republican gerrymander of the Wisconsin Legislature is widely expected after an April election gave liberals a majority on the state's high court.Perhaps the closest analogy to the Utah gerrymander is in Nashville, where the latest congressional map by the Republican-led state legislature divided the city's former Democratic-majority U.S. House district among three heavily Republican districts. Democrats have not challenged the map in state courts, presumably because they see little prospect of winning in a State Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees.In Utah's case, however, the State Supreme Court's five justices do not have reputations for bending easily to political winds. They are chosen through a merit-based selection process.The Utah plaintiffs — the state chapter of the League of Women Voters, the advocacy group Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and a handful of Utah voters —say that the gerrymandered map ignores a host of state constitutional provisions, including guarantees of free speech, free association and equal protection — provisions that they say should be read as prohibiting partisan maps.Republican legislators contend that they had the right to repeal the 2018 redistricting law, just as they could any other state law. And they say that the plaintiffs' aim is no different than their own: to tilt the playing field in their side's favor.But Katie Wright, the executive director of Better Boundaries — the group that led the effort to pass the redistricting law and that is backing the lawsuit — argued that there was a difference between the two. She noted that the Utah Legislature's disclosure of its new maps in 2021 sparked an unusually large public outcry that continues even today.“The reason we have this gerrymandered map is to keep the people who are in power in power,” she said. “But Utahns have not given up.”Michael Wines writes about voting and other election-related issues. Since joining The Times in 1988, he has covered the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, Russia, southern Africa, China and various other topics.  More about Michael WinesA version of this article appears in print on July 12, 2023, Section A, Page 16 of the New York edition with the headline: Utah's Supreme Court Weighs State Gerrymandering Case. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | COLORADO SUN:Denver's new mayor declares state of emergency on homelessness, sets goal of housing 1,000 unsheltered people by end of 2023Elliott Wenzler9:54 AM MDT on Jul 18, 2023In his first full day as Denver's new mayor, Mike Johnston declared a state of emergency around homelessness and announced that he plans to house 1,000 unsheltered people by the end of the year.Johnston said he will tour 78 neighborhoods across the city to accomplish his goal and that his staff will work with landlords, property owners and hotels to find housing availability. His administration is also looking at nearly 200 public plots to place tiny home communities where people experiencing homelessness can be housed.“This is what we think is the most important crisis the city is facing,” Johnston said at a news conference at the Denver's City and County Building. “We took the oath yesterday to commit to taking on this problem.”Homelessness has been an increasingly polarizing issue in Denver and it was a major focus on Johnston's mayoral campaign. He vowed to create tiny home communities on city-owned property as a way to get people off the street.Johnston said the state of emergency declaration will help the city access state and “possibly” federal funding. He also said it would allow the city to more quickly work through construction, renovation and permitting processes for new housing units.“And it sends a real message to all the rest of the state that we are deeply focused on this. We have real evidence to support that housing first as a strategy will get the great majority of people access to the support they need to stay housed and then access follow up resources,” he said. Johnston's inaugural address Monday was centered on the theme of what he called the “dream of Denver.” He mentioned housing costs, safety, mental illness, addiction and reimagining downtown as top priorities.Johnston said “Those of us on this stage took an oath today. But for us to succeed, every Denverite must take their own oath- an oath to dream, to serve, and to deliver. To dream (of) a Denver bold enough to include all of us. To serve our city above ourselves. To march on shoulder to shoulder, undeterred by failure, until we deliver results.”And your unsolicited concert pick of the week, Trombone Shorty & Orleans Avenue! With special guests Ziggy Marley, Mavis Staples, and the Robert Randolph Band. Monday July 24 at the Gerald Ford Amphitheatre in Vail. I've seen every one of these acts, and I'll just any one of them would be worth the trip on their own.  Welp, that's it for me! From Denver I'm Sean Diller. Original reporting for the stories in today's show comes from Colorado Sun, New York Times, Colorado Newsline, Arizona Mirror, and Denver's Westword.Thank you for listening! See you next time.

Lauren Boebert's fundraising lags Democratic challenger Adam Frisch | Rep. Yadira Caraveo (D-CO) raises $450K as her GOP challenger has yet to start fundraising | Anti-LGBTQ laws are being struck down around the country for violating First Amendment rights | Utah Supreme Court considers challenge to GOP gerrymandered Congressional map | Denver Mayor Mike Johnston declares a state of emergency around homelessness | Trombone Shorty & Orleans Avenue, Ziggy Marley, Mavis Staples, Robert Randolph Band play Vail on July 24.Song playsIntro by hostWelcome to High Country - politics in the American West. My name is Sean Diller; regular listeners might know me from Heartland Pod's Talking Politics, every Monday.Support this show and all the work in the Heartland POD universe by going to heartlandpod.com and clicking the link for Patreon, or go to Patreon.com/HeartlandPod to sign up. Membership starts at $1/month, with even more extra shows and special access at the higher levels. No matter the level you choose, your membership helps us create these independent shows as we work together to change the conversation.Alright! Let's get into it: COLORADO NEWSLINE:Lauren Boebert's Democratic challenger raised 3x what she did in the 2nd quarterBY: SARA WILSON - JULY 17, 2023 4:07 PMDemocrat Adam Frisch raised over three times what Republican incumbent Rep. Lauren Boebert did over the last three months in Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, as the seat appears likely to be a competitive — and expensive — race in 2024.In 2022, Boebert beat Frisch for a second term by 546 votes. Both candidates are actively fundraising with 16 months until a general election rematch.Frisch reported raising about $2.6 million during the most recent campaign finance reporting period, which ran from April to June, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. The former Aspen City Council member spent about $1.4 million and has about $2.5 million in cash on hand.During his 2022 campaign, Frisch raised about $6.7 million, including personal loans, and spent about $6.4 million.Boebert reported raising over $800,000 from April to June. She spent a bit over $400,000 and has about $1.4 million in the bank.In 2022, Boebert raised almost $8 million and spent about $7.4 million.Both candidates brought in a large amount of donations under $200 that don't need to be individually listed on reports — about 66% of Frisch's cash and 47% of Boebert's.Frisch listed about 1,400 individual donations from Colorado residents for a total of about $280,000. Boebert listed about 600 donations from people in Colorado, raising about $150,000.Both Boebert and Frisch spent heavily on advertising during the quarter. Frisch reported spending over $600,000 on contact list acquisition and digital advertising and another $290,000 on direct mail. Boebert spent $52,000 on digital advertising and over $100,000 on direct mail. She reported spending over $28,000 on campaign-related travel during the quarter.The 3rd Congressional District encompasses the Western Slope, San Luis Valley and swings east to Pueblo County.In other districts - Democratic Rep. Yadira Caraveo in the 8th Congressional District raised about $450,000 during the quarter. She spent about $120,000 and has about $625,000 in cash on hand.Republican Scott James has announced his candidacy but has not reported any raising or spending so far this cycle.The National Republican Congressional Committee listed the district as a target race for 2024, priming it for an influx of national party attention and resources. At the same time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will also likely pour money into the race, listing Caraveo as a potential vulnerable freshman member.The 8th Congressional District includes Denver's northeast suburbs into Weld County.ARIZONA MIRROR:.Anti-LGBTQ laws in the US are getting struck down for limiting free speechDR. MARK SATTAJULY 13, 2023 7:11 AMAnti-LGBTQ laws passed in 2023 included measures to deny gender-affirming care to trans children. Photo by Mario Tama | Getty Images via The ConversationNearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in the U.S. in 2023. Many of those bills seek to reduce or eliminate gender-affirming care for transgender minors or to ban drag performances in places where minors could view them.Most of those bills have not become law. But many of those that have did not survive legal scrutiny when challenged in court.A notable feature of these rulings is how many rely on the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In several of the decisions, judges used harsh language to describe what they deemed to be assaults on a fundamental American right.Here's a summary of some of the most notable legal outcomes:Drag performancesSeveral states passed laws aimed at restricting drag performances. These laws were quickly challenged in court. So far, judges have sided with those challenging these laws.On June 2, 2023, a federal judge permanently enjoined Tennessee's attempt to limit drag performances by restricting “adult entertainment” featuring “male or female impersonators.” When a law is permanently enjoined, it can no longer be enforced unless an appeals court reverses the decision.The judge ruled on broad grounds that Tennessee's law violated freedom of speech, writing that it “reeks with constitutional maladies of vagueness and overbreadth fatal to statutes that regulate First Amendment rights.” He also ruled that the law was passed for the “impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech” and that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which occurs when a law regulates speech from a disfavored perspective.Three weeks later, a federal judge granted a temporary injunction against Florida's anti-drag law on similar grounds.And in Utah, a federal judge required the city of St. George to grant a permit for a drag show, ruling that the city had applied an ordinance in a discriminatory manner in order to prevent the family-friendly drag show from happening. As in the other cases, the judge's ruling was based on First Amendment precedent.Gender-affirming careOn June 20, 2023, a federal judge permanently enjoined an Arkansas law, passed in 2021 over the veto of then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson, preventing transgender minors from receiving various kinds of gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.The judge held that Arkansas' law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause – which ensures laws are applied equally regardless of social characteristics like race or gender – because the law discriminated on the basis of sex.Arkansas claimed its law was passed in order to protect children and to safeguard medical ethics. The judge agreed that these were legitimate state interests, but rejected Arkansas' claim that its law furthered those ends.The judge also held that Arkansas' law violated the First Amendment free speech rights of medical care providers because the law would have prevented them from providing referrals for gender transition medical treatment.During June 2023, federal judges in Florida and Indiana granted temporary injunctions against enforcement of similar state laws. This means that these laws cannot be enforced until a full trial is conducted – and only if that trial results in a ruling that these laws are constitutional.Free speech for the LGBTQ communityIn striking down these unconstitutional state laws on First Amendment grounds, many judges went out of their way to reinforce the point that freedom of speech protects views about sexual orientation and gender identity that may be unpopular in conservative areas.In his ruling on the St. George, Utah case, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer stressed that “Public spaces are public spaces. Public spaces are not private spaces. Public spaces are not majority spaces. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that all citizens, popular or not, majority or minority, conventional or unconventional, have access to public spaces for public expression.”Nuffer also noted that “Public officials and the city governments in which they serve are trustees of constitutional rights for all citizens.” Protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens includes protecting the constitutional rights of members of the LGBTQ community and of other gender-nonconforming people.Free speech rights also extend to those who want to use speech in order to help promote the well-being of LGBTQ people. In ruling that Arkansas' law violated the First Amendment, Judge Jay Moody stated that the state law “prevents doctors from informing their patients where gender transition treatment may be available” and that it “effectively bans their ability to speak to patients about these treatments because the physician is not allowed to tell their patient where it is available.” For this reason, he held that the law violated the First Amendment.As additional anti-LGBTQ state laws are challenged in court, judges are likely to continue to use the First Amendment to show how such laws fail to respect Americans' fundamental free speech rights.This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The ConversationNEW YORK TIMES:Utah G.O.P.'s Map Carved Up Salt Lake Democrats to dilute their power. Is that legal?The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday over whether a congressional map drawn to dilute Democratic votes was subject to judicial review, or a political issue beyond its reach.By Michael WinesJuly 11, 2023Last week, Utah's Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of arguments put forward by the State Legislature that it had essentially unreviewable power to draw a map of the state's congressional districts that diluted the votes of Democrats.The Republican-controlled Legislature approved a map in 2021 that carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, the state's most populous county, and scattered its voters among the state's four U.S. House districts, all of which were predominantly Republican.The lawmakers acted after repealing a law — enacted by Utah voters in a 2018 ballot initiative — that outlawed political maps unduly favoring a candidate or political party.The Legislature's map was widely acknowledged at the time to be a partisan gerrymander, including by the Republican governor, Spencer J. Cox, who noted at the time that both parties often produced skewed maps.The question before the justices on Tuesday was whether the state's courts could hear a lawsuit challenging the Legislature's map, or whether partisan maps were a political issue beyond their jurisdiction. It was not clear when the court would hand down a ruling.Much of Tuesday's hearing — which was streamed on the state court's website — focused on the Legislature's repeal of the 2018 ballot initiative, given the provision in the State Constitution that all political power resides with the people and that they have the right “to alter and reform” their government.Mark Gaber is a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy law firm based in Washington that represents the plaintiffs in the case before the court. He said, “the Legislature has for decades engaged in this anti-democratic distortion of the process. And the people said: ‘We have had enough. We are going to alter and reform our government and recognize that we hold the political power in this state.'”Taylor Meehan, a lawyer with the law firm Consovoy McCarthy who is representing the Legislature, said Utah citizens had many ways to exercise political influence even after the repeal. “The people can advocate for a constitutional amendment,” Ms. Meehan said. “The people also can elect and lobby and propose ideas to their Legislature. The Legislature will still be politically accountable for whether they vote maps up or down.”Chief Justice Matthew Durrant questioned the claim. “That seems like an empty promise,” he said. “Ultimately, under the system you're suggesting, the Legislature is always going to have the final say.”In court filings, legislators said that the State Constitution gave them exclusive authority to draw political maps, and that the plaintiffs were trying to impose “illusory standards of political equality” on the mapmaking process.With the U.S. Supreme Court having barred federal courts from deciding partisan gerrymander cases, state courts are becoming a crucial battleground for opponents of skewed maps. Joshua A. Douglas, an expert on state constitution protections for voting at the University of Kentucky, said the growing body of legal precedents in state gerrymandering cases was important because many state constitutions shared similar protections for elections and voters, often derived from one another.Courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Alaska, New York and, last week, New Mexico have ruled that partisan gerrymanders can be unconstitutional. So have courts in Ohio and North Carolina. However, the Ohio court proved unable to force the legislature to comply with its rulings, and the North Carolina decision was overturned in April after elections shifted the court's majority from Democratic to Republican.The Kentucky Supreme Court will hear a challenge to that state's congressional and legislative maps in September. And a lawsuit contesting an extreme Republican gerrymander of the Wisconsin Legislature is widely expected after an April election gave liberals a majority on the state's high court.Perhaps the closest analogy to the Utah gerrymander is in Nashville, where the latest congressional map by the Republican-led state legislature divided the city's former Democratic-majority U.S. House district among three heavily Republican districts. Democrats have not challenged the map in state courts, presumably because they see little prospect of winning in a State Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees.In Utah's case, however, the State Supreme Court's five justices do not have reputations for bending easily to political winds. They are chosen through a merit-based selection process.The Utah plaintiffs — the state chapter of the League of Women Voters, the advocacy group Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and a handful of Utah voters —say that the gerrymandered map ignores a host of state constitutional provisions, including guarantees of free speech, free association and equal protection — provisions that they say should be read as prohibiting partisan maps.Republican legislators contend that they had the right to repeal the 2018 redistricting law, just as they could any other state law. And they say that the plaintiffs' aim is no different than their own: to tilt the playing field in their side's favor.But Katie Wright, the executive director of Better Boundaries — the group that led the effort to pass the redistricting law and that is backing the lawsuit — argued that there was a difference between the two. She noted that the Utah Legislature's disclosure of its new maps in 2021 sparked an unusually large public outcry that continues even today.“The reason we have this gerrymandered map is to keep the people who are in power in power,” she said. “But Utahns have not given up.”Michael Wines writes about voting and other election-related issues. Since joining The Times in 1988, he has covered the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, Russia, southern Africa, China and various other topics.  More about Michael WinesA version of this article appears in print on July 12, 2023, Section A, Page 16 of the New York edition with the headline: Utah's Supreme Court Weighs State Gerrymandering Case. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | COLORADO SUN:Denver's new mayor declares state of emergency on homelessness, sets goal of housing 1,000 unsheltered people by end of 2023Elliott Wenzler9:54 AM MDT on Jul 18, 2023In his first full day as Denver's new mayor, Mike Johnston declared a state of emergency around homelessness and announced that he plans to house 1,000 unsheltered people by the end of the year.Johnston said he will tour 78 neighborhoods across the city to accomplish his goal and that his staff will work with landlords, property owners and hotels to find housing availability. His administration is also looking at nearly 200 public plots to place tiny home communities where people experiencing homelessness can be housed.“This is what we think is the most important crisis the city is facing,” Johnston said at a news conference at the Denver's City and County Building. “We took the oath yesterday to commit to taking on this problem.”Homelessness has been an increasingly polarizing issue in Denver and it was a major focus on Johnston's mayoral campaign. He vowed to create tiny home communities on city-owned property as a way to get people off the street.Johnston said the state of emergency declaration will help the city access state and “possibly” federal funding. He also said it would allow the city to more quickly work through construction, renovation and permitting processes for new housing units.“And it sends a real message to all the rest of the state that we are deeply focused on this. We have real evidence to support that housing first as a strategy will get the great majority of people access to the support they need to stay housed and then access follow up resources,” he said. Johnston's inaugural address Monday was centered on the theme of what he called the “dream of Denver.” He mentioned housing costs, safety, mental illness, addiction and reimagining downtown as top priorities.Johnston said “Those of us on this stage took an oath today. But for us to succeed, every Denverite must take their own oath- an oath to dream, to serve, and to deliver. To dream (of) a Denver bold enough to include all of us. To serve our city above ourselves. To march on shoulder to shoulder, undeterred by failure, until we deliver results.”And your unsolicited concert pick of the week, Trombone Shorty & Orleans Avenue! With special guests Ziggy Marley, Mavis Staples, and the Robert Randolph Band. Monday July 24 at the Gerald Ford Amphitheatre in Vail. I've seen every one of these acts, and I'll just any one of them would be worth the trip on their own.  Welp, that's it for me! From Denver I'm Sean Diller. Original reporting for the stories in today's show comes from Colorado Sun, New York Times, Colorado Newsline, Arizona Mirror, and Denver's Westword.Thank you for listening! See you next time.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Host Renee Shaw talks with her guests about voting rights and election laws. Scheduled guests: Secretary of State Michael Adams (R); Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky election law professor; State Rep. Jennifer Decker, Republican from Waddy; State Rep. Buddy Wheatley, Democrat from Covington; Corey Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU of Kentucky; and James Young.

https://news.gsu.edu/podcast/episode-19-joshua-a-douglas/ () Professor Joshua Douglas talks to Professor Segall about election myths, election law, current events, and his dog Rudy stops by for a quick visit as well.

Professor Joshua Douglas talks to Professor Segall about election myths, election law, current events, and his dog Rudy stops by for a quick visit as well.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

In this episode, Joshua A. Douglas, Ashland, Inc-Spears Distinguished Research Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, discusses his essay "Undue Deference to States in 2020 Election Litigation." Douglas begins by outlining the election litigation happening this year, and reflects on the likelihood of further litigation. He explains how federal courts evaluate the constitutionality of state action affecting the right to vote, in relation to other fundamental rights. He argues that the standard is too deferential, and that courts should put a higher burden on states to justify their actions. And he outlines different ways of achieving that goal. Douglas is on Twitter at @JoshuaADouglas.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As we approach Election Day on November 3rd, 2020, it seems the list of issues grows by the day. Controversy over ballot drop boxes. Intimidating emails to voters from Iran and Russia. A call for an "army of poll watchers" from the president. And so much may hinge on the Supreme Court. So, what impact will these issues have on the election? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Joshua A. Douglas from the University of Kentucky College of Law as they explore a variety of legal issues leading up to the election including voter suppression, voter intimidation, controversy over mail-in ballots, and the potential legal fight awaiting us after the election. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception.

As we approach Election Day on November 3rd, 2020, it seems the list of issues grows by the day. Controversy over ballot drop boxes. Intimidating emails to voters from Iran and Russia. A call for an "army of poll watchers" from the president. And so much may hinge on the Supreme Court. So, what impact will these issues have on the election? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Joshua A. Douglas from the University of Kentucky College of Law as they explore a variety of legal issues leading up to the election including voter suppression, voter intimidation, controversy over mail-in ballots, and the potential legal fight awaiting us after the election. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal and LEX Reception.

Host, Tom Martin, welcomes Joshua A. Douglas, Distinguished Election and Voting Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky, in conversation with Scott P. Lasley, Head of Department and Professor of Political Science at Western Kentucky University. Vote Worthy helps to inform voters about the issues and challenges surrounding the 2020 General Election. Vote Worthy is produced by Kentucky Humanities in partnership with WEKU and distributed to Kentucky's major public radio stations with support from the Federation of State Humanities Councils and a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Host, Tom Martin, welcomes Joshua A. Douglas. Distinguished Election and Voting Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky, in conversation with Professor Brian Clardy Associate Professor of History at Murray State University. Vote Worthy helps to inform voters about the issues and challenges surrounding the 2020 General Election. Vote Worthy is produced by Kentucky Humanities in partnership with WEKU and distributed to Kentucky's major public radio stations with support from the Federation of State Humanities Councils and a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Host, Tom Martin, welcomes Joshua A. Douglas, Distinguished Election and Voting Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky, in conversation with Margie Charasika, President of Louisville League of Women Voters and retired nurse. Vote Worthy helps to inform voters about the issues and challenges surrounding the 2020 General Election. Vote Worthy is produced by Kentucky Humanities in partnership with WEKU and distributed to Kentucky's major public radio stations with support from the Federation of State Humanities Councils and a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

This is a rebroadcast of a webinar that FairVote presented on Friday, August 28, 2020 entitled, "The Future of American Elections: Making Every Vote Count." This was a panel discussion headed by David Daley, FairVote's senior communications fellow and author. Guest panelists include Neal Simon, Rebecca Chavez-Houck and Joshua A. Douglas. Neal Simon is a retired business executive and former independent candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. He is the author of Contract to Unite America: Ten Reforms to Reclaim Our Republic, which recounts stories from campaigns around the country including his own, and provides specific, practical solutions for an improved government. Rebecca Chavez-Houck is a former Utah State Representative who holds a B.A. in Journalism and Mass Communication and a Master of Public Administration, both from the University of Utah. She represented Salt Lake City's District 24 in the Utah House of Representatives from 2008-18, focusing on public policy related to health and human services as well as voter engagement and access. Joshua A. Douglas is a professor at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law. He teaches and researches election law and voting rights, civil procedure, constitutional law, and judicial decision making. He is the author of Vote for US: How to Take Back our Elections and Change the Future of Voting, a popular press book that provides hope and inspiration for a positive path forward on voting rights. Stay tuned for a fascinating hour of discussion regarding Ranked Choice Voting and the Fair Representation Act. All three panelists highlight their perspectives on these topics and describe why they believe election reform is on the rise in our country.

Today on The Daily Beans: Pelosi’s scathing letter, more problems with hydroxychloroquine, failed leadership in south Dakota, massive pushback on easing restrictions, Richard Burr is in more ethical trouble, Trump violates the impoundment control act by defunding the WHO and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

LEXINGTON, Ky. (April 9, 2020) – Kentucky is currently one of 14 states that has postponed its election primary. The voting day in the Commonwealth has been changed from May 19 to June 23. As states around the country weigh the costs of postponing vs. the potential risks of keeping schedules in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are beginning to discuss what all of this may mean for the general election in November. On this special edition of the Behind the Blue, Joshua A. Douglas provides some insight as to how these situations are playing out around the country. Douglas is the Thomas P. Lewis Professor of Law at UK’s J. David Rosenberg College of Law. He teaches and researches election law and voting rights, civil procedure, constitutional law and judicial decision making. Douglas is the author of ‘Vote for US: How to Take Back our Elections and Change the Future of Voting’, a book that aims to provide hope and inspiration for a positive path forward on voting rights. "Behind the Blue" is available on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher and Spotify. Become a subscriber to receive new episodes of “Behind the Blue” each week. UK’s latest medical breakthroughs, research, artists and writers will be featured, along with the most important news impacting the university. For questions or comments about this or any other episode of "Behind the Blue," email BehindTheBlue@uky.edu or tweet your question with #BehindTheBlue. Transcripts for this or other episodes of Behind the Blue can be downloaded from the show’s blog page. You can watch a video version of this podcast here. To discover what’s wildly possible at the University of Kentucky, click here.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Bob Salter is joined by Joshua A. Douglas, Professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law and author of Vote For Us. Talking about taking back our elections and changing the future of voting.

Host Cyrus Webb welcomes author Joshua A. Douglas to #ConversationsLIVE to discuss what it's been like to share his book VOTE FOR US with the world, what he hoped the book would do in sparking converations and how to move the narrative forward

Joshua A. Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, examines efforts across the country to expand the voting rolls such as lowering the minimum voting age or extending the right to vote to felons ... as well as efforts to remove barriers that can discourage or prevent people from exercising their right to vote. His book is titled "Vote for Us: How to Take Back our Elections and Change the Future of Voting."

Eleanor LeCain discusses how every day Americans are winning democracy reforms in cities and states across the country with Joshua A. Douglas, author of Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change The Future of Voting and professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law.

Renee discusses voting rights reform initiatives with Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky College of Law Professor and author of Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting.

Renee discusses voting rights reform initiatives with Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky College of Law Professor and author of Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting.

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Renee Shaw and guests discuss election laws and voting rights. Scheduled guests: Anne Cizmar, Eastern Kentucky University government professor; Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky law professor; Bruce Hicks, University of the Cumberlands history and political science professor; and Paul E. Salamanca, University of Kentucky law professor.

Renee Shaw and guests discuss election laws and voting rights. Scheduled guests: Anne Cizmar, Eastern Kentucky University government professor; Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky law professor; Bruce Hicks, University of the Cumberlands history and political science professor; and Paul E. Salamanca, University of Kentucky law professor.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Election Law with Joshua A. Douglas by Research Communications