Podcast appearances and mentions of nicholas stephanopoulos

Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a leading authority on gerrymandering and election law, explores the pivotal role that legal professionals play in safeguarding our democratic processes. Professor Stephanopoulos shares his insights on the current state of election law, the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions, and the ongoing challenges in campaign finance. By the end of the episode, you'll understand why every election is crucial and how the legal community can uphold the integrity of our democracy.

We may be missing some crucial data to help us find a clearer picture of the causes of political polarization. As data scientists hunt for more information, we are faced with a challenge and an opportunity for American democracy to be better, reduce polarization and improve representation. Nicholas Stephanolpoulos from Harvard University and TrueViews weighs in on the issue and provides a way to make public opinion data more accessible.

Join Boyd Matheson in delving into Thursday’s news! Maura Carabello discusses how the Utah Supreme Court voids ballot measures that would have undercut voters’ power. Discover Senator Rand Paul’s “six-penny plan” with Eric Boehm. Nicholas Stephanopoulo discusses how accessible public opinion data could help ease political polarization. Frederick Hess urges everyone to develop strategies to be more digitally informed and More!

* After Gaza Humanitarian Pause, Hostage/Prisoner Release, Activists Push for Permanent Ceasefire; Hassan El-Tayyab, leg. dir. Middle East Policy, Advocacy Organizer w Friends Committee on National Legislation; Producer: Scott Harris. * Federal Appeals Court Ruling Further Erodes 1965 Voting Rights Act and US Democracy; Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Kirkland & Ellis professor of Law at Harvard University; Producer: Scott Harris. * Canadian Indian School Survivor Shares her story at Annual ‘National Day of Mourning' Rally; Harriet Prince, a survivor of the Canadian Indian residential school system; Producer: Melinda Tuhus.

Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos stops by Supreme Myths to talk about his forthcoming book “Alignment: A Theory of the Law of Democracy,” as well as wide array of difficult, controversial, and timely election law issues.

The Supreme Court considered a case this week that could upend the way America conducts elections. Moore v Harper brings to the national stage a once-fringe legal theory that state lawmakers enjoy near-absolute authority over federal elections. What impact could the case have? And, with the final race in the midterms now complete, how healthy does democracy in America look?The Economist's Supreme Court correspondent Steve Mazie recaps the arguments before the court. The Economist's Ann Wroe remembers the time the Supreme Court decided an election. And Harvard's Nicholas Stephanopoulos assesses the state of America's democracy. John Prideaux hosts with Charlotte Howard and Idrees Kahloon. We are always trying to improve our podcasts for our listeners. To help, please complete this short survey: economist.com/uspodsurvey You can now find every episode of Checks and Balance in one place and sign up to our weekly newsletter. For full access to print, digital and audio editions, as well as exclusive live events, subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/uspod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court considered a case this week that could upend the way America conducts elections. Moore v Harper brings to the national stage a once-fringe legal theory that state lawmakers enjoy near-absolute authority over federal elections. What impact could the case have? And, with the final race in the midterms now complete, how healthy does democracy in America look?The Economist's Supreme Court correspondent Steve Mazie recaps the arguments before the court. The Economist's Ann Wroe remembers the time the Supreme Court decided an election. And Harvard's Nicholas Stephanopoulos assesses the state of America's democracy.  John Prideaux hosts with Charlotte Howard and Idrees Kahloon. We are always trying to improve our podcasts for our listeners. To help, please complete this short survey: economist.com/uspodsurvey You can now find every episode of Checks and Balance in one place and sign up to our weekly newsletter. For full access to print, digital and audio editions, as well as exclusive live events, subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/uspod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a political scientist and legal scholar whose research focuses on gerrymandering, explains its effect on American democracy and how it might be stopped. Topics include recent state laws that limit voting, the voting-rights bills being debated in Congress, and the current state of “alignment” between voters' wishes and government actions.A note to our listeners: This episode was recorded on September 30, 2021. For more information about Harvard Magazine and this podcast, visit www.harvardmagazine.com/podcast and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.For a transcript of this episode, go to https://harvardmagazine.com/2021/nicholas-stephanopoulosAsk a Harvard Professor is hosted by Lydialyle Gibson, Jonathan Shaw, Jacob Sweet, and Nancy Walecki, and produced by Jacob Sweet and Niko Yaitanes. Our theme music was composed by Louis Weeks.

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in two highly-watched cases. In Rucho v. Common Cause/ Lamone v. Benisek, the high court ruled federal courts do not have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims. In Department of Commerce v. New York , SCOTUS blocked the Trump administration’s request to add a controversial citizenship question to the U.S. census. So what kind of legal implications could these two rulings have on the legal and political landscape of the United States? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, as they discuss these two cases, take a look at gerrymandering, the 2020 census citizenship question, President Trump’s fight, how the census affects gerrymandering and next steps. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolMr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC

Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolMr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all. Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.” The key voices: Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles The key cases: 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer 2017: Gill v. Whitford The key links: “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee  Special thanks to David Herman. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, UChicago’s Nicholas Stephanopoulos, the University of Michigan’s Jowei Chen and Change Illinois’ Ryan Blitstein discussed the issue of redistricting reform

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, UChicago’s Nicholas Stephanopoulos, the University of Michigan’s Jowei Chen and Change Illinois’ Ryan Blitstein discussed the issue of redistricting reform

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the two pillars of the Voting Rights Act: Section 5, which had barred southern jurisdictions from changing their election laws unless they first received federal approval. The burning question now is what will happen to minority representation in the South in the absence of Section 5. In this talk, Prof. Stephanopoulos explores the differences between the defunct Section 5 and Section 2 of the VRA, which continues to apply nationwide. His sobering conclusion is that Section 2 provides substantially less protection with respect to both redistricting and franchise restrictions. The demise of Section 5 is therefore likely to reverse decades of progress for voting rights in the South. Nicholas Stephanopoulos is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This Chicago's Best Ideas talk was recorded on November 13, 2013.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the two pillars of the Voting Rights Act: Section 5, which had barred southern jurisdictions from changing their election laws unless they first received federal approval. The burning question now is what will happen to minority representation in the South in the absence of Section 5. In this talk, Prof. Stephanopoulos explores the differences between the defunct Section 5 and Section 2 of the VRA, which continues to apply nationwide. His sobering conclusion is that Section 2 provides substantially less protection with respect to both redistricting and franchise restrictions. The demise of Section 5 is therefore likely to reverse decades of progress for voting rights in the South. Nicholas Stephanopoulos is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This Chicago's Best Ideas talk was recorded on November 13, 2013.