Podcast appearances and mentions of Richard L Hasen

Melissa Murray is in for Ali Velshi and is joined by Columnist & Editor for MSNBC Daily Hayes Brown, Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA), UCLA School of Law's Richard L. Hasen, NYU School of Law's Rachel Barkow, Co-Founders of The Contrarian Norman Eisen and Jennifer Rubin, Executive Editor of Ms. Magazine Katherine Spillar, Politico's Josh Gerstein, and Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School Leah Litman.

Richard Hasen, author of A Real Right to Vote, Sarah Isgur, senior editor of The Dispatch, and Lawrence Lessig, author of How to Steal a Presidential Election, join Jeffrey Rosen for a health check on the state of American democracy. They look ahead to potential areas of vulnerability in the run-up to the 2024 election, and identify ways to strengthen our democratic processes in response. This program was streamed live on March 21, 2024, as part of our America's Town Hall series. Resources:  Richard L. Hasen, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (2024) Lawrence Lessig and Matthew Seligman, How to Steal a Presidential Election (2024) National Constitution Center's We the People podcast, “The Supreme Court Says States Can't Keep Trump Off the Ballot," (March 7, 2024) Sarah Isgur and David French, “Indictment Watch: The Supreme Court Decides Whether States Can Disqualify Trump,” Advisory Opinions, The Dispatch (March 5, 2024) Richard L. Hasen, “The Supreme Court Just Delivered a Rare Self-Own for John Roberts,” Slate (March 5, 2024) Conference Report, “Carter-Baker Commission: 16 Years Later” (2021) Amicus brief of Richard L. Hasen, Edward Foley and Ben Ginsburg, Trump v. Anderson 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.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Richard Hasen, author of A Real Right to Vote, Sarah Isgur, senior editor of The Dispatch, and Lawrence Lessig, author of How to Steal a Presidential Election, provide a health check on the state of American democracy, and look ahead to potential areas of vulnerability in the run-up to the 2024 election. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Richard L. Hasen, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy Lawrence Lessig and Matthew Seligman, How to Steal a Presidential Election Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court Says States Can't Keep Trump Off the Ballot," We the People, National Constitution Center Trump v. Anderson (2024) Sarah Isgur and David French,“Indictment Watch: The Supreme Court Decides Whether States Can Disqualify Trump,” Advisory Opinions, The Dispatch Richard L. Hasen, “The Supreme Court Just Delivered a Rare Self-Own for John Roberts,” Slate (March 5, 2023) Conference Report, “Carter-Baker Commission: 16 Years Later” (2021) Trump v. Anderson, Amicus brief of Richard L. Hasen, Edward Foley and Ben Ginsburg Stay Connected and Learn More Continue today's conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #AmericasTownHall Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

Richard L. Hasen is Professor of Law and Political Science at UCLA and director of UCLA Law's Safeguarding Democracy Project. We discuss his most recent book, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.   A country that believes that its people are equal should ensure equal voting rights. However, the US Constitution does not currently protect the right to vote. All adult non-felon citizens should have a constitutional right to vote where they reside. That vote should be equally weighted and eligible voters should not face unnecessary burdens to voting. Furthermore, minority voters should have voter protection and Congress should have broad powers to protect voting rights. Even though the US has not enacted a constitutional amendment since the 1970s, Americans should start thinking about a movement towards passing a voting rights amendment with the expectation that it might take decades. Rich Hasen reminds us that “Nobody is coming to save American democracy. We have to do it ourselves, and people are stepping up.”  Follow Rick on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/rickhasen   Follow Mila on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/milaatmos    Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Sponsor:  Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!  http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard    Take the Democracy Group's Listener Survey! https://www.democracygroup.org/survey   Want to support the show and get it early?  https://patreon.com/futurehindsight    Check out the Future Hindsight website!  www.futurehindsight.com   Read the transcript here:   https://www.futurehindsight.com/episodes/a-real-right-to-vote-richard-l-hasen      Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Richard L. Hasen Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

As the Supreme Court has chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, renewed calls have been made for ways to protect all Americans' right to vote. Richard L. Hasen is professor of law and political science at UCLA and director of UCLA Law's Safeguarding Democracy Project. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss why he feels we need a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote, and why leaving it to the courts to decide who can vote is a bad idea. His book is “A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.”

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification.

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Throughout history, too many Americans have been disenfranchised or faced needless barriers to voting. Part of the blame falls on the Constitution, which does not contain an affirmative right to vote. The Supreme Court has made matters worse by failing to protect voting rights and limiting Congress's ability to do so. The time has come for voters to take action and push for an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee this right for all. Drawing on troubling stories of state attempts to disenfranchise military voters, women, African Americans, students, former felons, Native Americans, and others, Richard Hasen argues that American democracy can and should do better in assuring that all eligible voters can cast a meaningful vote that will be fairly counted. He shows how a constitutional right to vote can deescalate voting wars between political parties that lead to endless rounds of litigation and undermine voter confidence in elections, and can safeguard democracy against dangerous attempts at election subversion like the one we witnessed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The path to a constitutional amendment is undoubtedly hard, especially in these polarized times. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (Princeton UP, 2024) explains what's in it for conservatives who have resisted voting reform and reveals how the pursuit of an amendment can yield tangible dividends for democracy long before ratification. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Last month, Mark Updegrove moderated a discussion at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, at Rice University, entitled "A presidential election with legal issues like no other." There, he interviewed two legal experts about the legal challenges faced by the GOP's leading presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump, one of the many unprecedented aspects of our presidential election later this year. Richard L. Hasen is Professor of Law and Political Science at UCLA and the Director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. And Joshua Sellers is Professor of Law at the University of Texas at Austin.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday , December 22nd, 2023. Quick shout out to Andrea & Jonah Briggs! Samaritan Ministries: November This is the time of year many of us are thinking about how we’re going to pay our medical bills next year. Before making a final decision, take a look at health care sharing with Samaritan Ministries. As a Samaritan member, you’re connected to 80,000 Christan households across the nation who stand ready to care for one another spiritually and financially when a medical need arises. Samaritan Ministries is affordable, and with no network restrictions you’re in control of your health care, choosing the doctors, hospitals, and treatments that are right for you. And with direct member-to-member sharing, you’ll always know who your money is helping, and that you’re not supporting medical procedures that go against your values. Get started today at samaritan ministries dot org slash cross politic. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html Trump Is Disqualified From 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it — applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country. The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election. “We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” a four-justice majority wrote, with three justices dissenting. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.” Mr. Trump’s campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado justices anticipated that likelihood by putting their ruling on hold at least until Jan. 4; if Mr. Trump appeals before then, the hold will continue until the Supreme Court rules. And while Tuesday’s ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nation’s highest court to decide the question for all 50. “It’s hard for me to see how they don’t take this one, because this certainly seems to be one of those questions that requires some national resolution,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University who has closely followed the Colorado case and related lawsuits around the country. If the justices take up the case, it will join a pile of other Trump-related matters they have agreed or are likely to decide, including whether he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took in office and the scope of an obstruction charge that is central to his federal Jan. 6 case. The U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself, and it is already under extraordinary political pressure and scrutiny both for its rulings and its justices’ ethics. “Once again, the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who compared the stakes to Bush v. Gore. “But, unlike in 2000, the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.” In the Colorado court’s lengthy ruling on Tuesday, the justices there reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed the district judge’s other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated. “A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the justices wrote. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado secretary of state to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.” Mr. Trump’s campaign denounced the ruling, which is likely to inflame a Republican base that he has primed to see the array of civil and criminal cases against him as a witch hunt. Politically, his standing among Republican primary voters has only risen in the wake of the dozens of criminal charges against him. “Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.” Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify Mr. Trump there. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Tuesday’s ruling “is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. His organization represented the voters seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump in Colorado. Mr. Trump himself, who has routinely railed against unfavorable rulings, did not explicitly mention the Colorado Supreme Court decision in a speech Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa — but his campaign was already fund-raising off it. An email to his supporters accused Democrats of trying to “nullify” Trump votes and asked for contributions to help defend his place on ballots. Republican elected officials quickly circled the wagons around Mr. Trump, and a super PAC supporting him blasted out some of their comments to supporters. In one more illustration of the unusual nature of the 2024 Republican primary race — in which even the candidates seeking to defeat Mr. Trump for the party’s nomination have largely shied away from condemning him — his main rivals, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both suggested that the ruling was an abuse of judicial power. The case hinged on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency? Again, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/12/21/at-least-11-dead-in-prague-shooting/ At Least 15 Dead in Prague Shooting. At least 15 people have been reported dead and injured in a shooting incident at Charles University’s Faculty of Arts located near the Old Town, a major tourist hub within the city, as per the official statement from Prague police. The horrific event unraveled at this educational facility in the capital city of the Czech Republic, erupting fear and panic among students and faculty present at the scene. Local authorities confirmed the shooter’s elimination shortly after the attack, while refraining from revealing exactly how many victims were impacted. Eyewitness reports and visual evidence posted on social media depicted the terrifying scene on the university campus, with sirens blaring and police vehicles flooding the streets around the building. Videos on social media platforms showed bystanders looking visibly panicked and attempting to escape the premises. Prague police issued a plea, urging residents to stay away from the area and to remain indoors for safety reasons. Jakob Weizman, a journalist sheltering inside a darkened classroom, shared his experience on social media: “Currently stuck inside my classroom in Prague. Shooter is dead, but we’re waiting to be evacuated. Praying to make it out alive,” he wrote. He later added, “Locked the door before the shooter tried to open it. F—ing hell.” Yet another social media user furnished the world with a chilling image of what appeared to be students desperately huddled on the university building’s scaffolding, emphasizing the level of fear and panic induced by the tragic event. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/game-on-with-china-us-to-restore-tinian-airfield-once-home/ Game-On With China! US To Restore Tinian Airfield Once Home To Largest B-29 Bomber Fleet During WWII US Air Force General Kenneth Wilsbach shared this development in a discussion with Asia Nikkei, revealing that the military branch is increasing construction efforts at Tinian North Airfield and Tinian International Airfield. This effort is a crucial component of a broader initiative to disperse aircraft strategically across the Indo-Pacific region, responding to the escalating missile threat posed by China. “If you pay attention in the next few months, you will see significant progress, especially at Tinian North,” Wilsbach said. During World War II, the Tinian North Airfield served as the operational base for the largest B-29 bomber fleet. Describing the airfield as having extensive pavement hidden beneath an overgrown jungle, he revealed plans to clear the jungle between now and summertime. The goal is to transform the site into a comprehensive facility upon completion. Tinian, positioned approximately 200 kilometers north of Guam within the Northern Mariana Islands, is undergoing a revitalization in line with the US Air Force’s operational strategy, Agile Combat Employment. This strategic approach, a departure from post-Cold War era tactics, involves deliberately relocating aircraft to various sites across the western Pacific. The primary goal is to mitigate vulnerability to potential enemy missile strikes during periods of crisis. As documents released in March revealed, as part of the Air Force’s 2024 budget request, several projects are outlined for Tinian, seeking a budget allocation of US$78 million for the fiscal year. Among these projects is an airfield development initiative encompassing the demolition of World War II-era airfield pavements, clearing and leveling surfaces, and installing drainage, utilities, and secure fencing. Another project focuses on establishing a fuel-pipeline system involving the installation of storage tanks, pipes, and safety equipment to facilitate fuel unloading from ships for transport to the airfield via pipeline and truck. Additionally, a parking-apron project is detailed, which aims to pave areas designated for aircraft parking and taxiways. The taxiways must adhere to the Pentagon’s standards for ground control operations for large-frame aircraft, as specified in the documents. The proposed apron size would accommodate up to 12 KC-135 and KC-46 tanker aircraft and the necessary fueling equipment. Tinian currently houses one international airfield, while Tinian North Airfield, once the most extensive B-29 base during World War II, lies largely concealed by jungle growth. However, the runways and taxiways remain intact. Tinian was captured from Japanese control by US forces in the summer of 1944, toward the end of World War II. The northern expanse of the island hosted a substantial and historically momentous airfield, famously recognized as North Field. This airfield played a crucial role in Operation Silverplate, serving as the departure point for two specially modified B-29 bombers on separate sorties, marking the sole operational use of nuclear weapons to date. Beyond these historic missions, North Field was instrumental as the launch site for many bomber and reconnaissance flights conducted over Japan and across the Western Pacific during the latter phases of the war. In the aftermath of World War II, the airfield witnessed a substantial deterioration in maintenance, resulting in the decline of its expansive parallel runways, aprons, and supporting infrastructure. The US Air Force is now intensifying its endeavors to enhance the airfield’s capabilities to accommodate fighter jets, bombers, and significant support aircraft. These expanded capabilities align with the standards commonly met by the nearby Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. However, the US believes that if Andersen Air Force Base faces disruption due to enemy actions, notably those from China, or natural disasters, this facility on Tinian would be crucial in ensuring continuity and resilience in US military operations in the Pacific region. https://pagesix.com/2023/12/20/celebrity-news/hulk-hogan-70-gets-baptized-surrenders-to-jesus-greatest-day-of-my-life/ Hulk Hogan, 70, gets baptized, ‘surrenders’ to Jesus: ‘Greatest day of my life’ WWE icon Hulk Hogan has been baptized. His ceremony took place at Indian Rocks Baptist Church in Florida, as noted by the social media slideshow he shared Wednesday night. “Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life,” the 70-year-old star captioned the post. “No worries, no hate, no judgment… only love!” Hogan’s slideshow included a video of him and his wife, Sky Daily Hogan, submerging themselves in a pool of water and resurfacing with huge grins on their faces. They were both garbed with white clothing, with the former pro wrestler rocking his signature bandana and a gold cross necklace. A photo included at the end of the post appeared to show Hulk and Sky, plus others, bowing their heads in prayer. The Indian Rocks Baptist Church took to its Instagram Story to celebrate the “Hogan Knows Best” alum’s special moment.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday , December 22nd, 2023. Quick shout out to Andrea & Jonah Briggs! Samaritan Ministries: November This is the time of year many of us are thinking about how we’re going to pay our medical bills next year. Before making a final decision, take a look at health care sharing with Samaritan Ministries. As a Samaritan member, you’re connected to 80,000 Christan households across the nation who stand ready to care for one another spiritually and financially when a medical need arises. Samaritan Ministries is affordable, and with no network restrictions you’re in control of your health care, choosing the doctors, hospitals, and treatments that are right for you. And with direct member-to-member sharing, you’ll always know who your money is helping, and that you’re not supporting medical procedures that go against your values. Get started today at samaritan ministries dot org slash cross politic. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html Trump Is Disqualified From 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it — applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country. The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election. “We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” a four-justice majority wrote, with three justices dissenting. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.” Mr. Trump’s campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado justices anticipated that likelihood by putting their ruling on hold at least until Jan. 4; if Mr. Trump appeals before then, the hold will continue until the Supreme Court rules. And while Tuesday’s ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nation’s highest court to decide the question for all 50. “It’s hard for me to see how they don’t take this one, because this certainly seems to be one of those questions that requires some national resolution,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University who has closely followed the Colorado case and related lawsuits around the country. If the justices take up the case, it will join a pile of other Trump-related matters they have agreed or are likely to decide, including whether he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took in office and the scope of an obstruction charge that is central to his federal Jan. 6 case. The U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself, and it is already under extraordinary political pressure and scrutiny both for its rulings and its justices’ ethics. “Once again, the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who compared the stakes to Bush v. Gore. “But, unlike in 2000, the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.” In the Colorado court’s lengthy ruling on Tuesday, the justices there reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed the district judge’s other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated. “A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the justices wrote. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado secretary of state to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.” Mr. Trump’s campaign denounced the ruling, which is likely to inflame a Republican base that he has primed to see the array of civil and criminal cases against him as a witch hunt. Politically, his standing among Republican primary voters has only risen in the wake of the dozens of criminal charges against him. “Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.” Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify Mr. Trump there. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Tuesday’s ruling “is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. His organization represented the voters seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump in Colorado. Mr. Trump himself, who has routinely railed against unfavorable rulings, did not explicitly mention the Colorado Supreme Court decision in a speech Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa — but his campaign was already fund-raising off it. An email to his supporters accused Democrats of trying to “nullify” Trump votes and asked for contributions to help defend his place on ballots. Republican elected officials quickly circled the wagons around Mr. Trump, and a super PAC supporting him blasted out some of their comments to supporters. In one more illustration of the unusual nature of the 2024 Republican primary race — in which even the candidates seeking to defeat Mr. Trump for the party’s nomination have largely shied away from condemning him — his main rivals, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both suggested that the ruling was an abuse of judicial power. The case hinged on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency? Again, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/12/21/at-least-11-dead-in-prague-shooting/ At Least 15 Dead in Prague Shooting. At least 15 people have been reported dead and injured in a shooting incident at Charles University’s Faculty of Arts located near the Old Town, a major tourist hub within the city, as per the official statement from Prague police. The horrific event unraveled at this educational facility in the capital city of the Czech Republic, erupting fear and panic among students and faculty present at the scene. Local authorities confirmed the shooter’s elimination shortly after the attack, while refraining from revealing exactly how many victims were impacted. Eyewitness reports and visual evidence posted on social media depicted the terrifying scene on the university campus, with sirens blaring and police vehicles flooding the streets around the building. Videos on social media platforms showed bystanders looking visibly panicked and attempting to escape the premises. Prague police issued a plea, urging residents to stay away from the area and to remain indoors for safety reasons. Jakob Weizman, a journalist sheltering inside a darkened classroom, shared his experience on social media: “Currently stuck inside my classroom in Prague. Shooter is dead, but we’re waiting to be evacuated. Praying to make it out alive,” he wrote. He later added, “Locked the door before the shooter tried to open it. F—ing hell.” Yet another social media user furnished the world with a chilling image of what appeared to be students desperately huddled on the university building’s scaffolding, emphasizing the level of fear and panic induced by the tragic event. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/game-on-with-china-us-to-restore-tinian-airfield-once-home/ Game-On With China! US To Restore Tinian Airfield Once Home To Largest B-29 Bomber Fleet During WWII US Air Force General Kenneth Wilsbach shared this development in a discussion with Asia Nikkei, revealing that the military branch is increasing construction efforts at Tinian North Airfield and Tinian International Airfield. This effort is a crucial component of a broader initiative to disperse aircraft strategically across the Indo-Pacific region, responding to the escalating missile threat posed by China. “If you pay attention in the next few months, you will see significant progress, especially at Tinian North,” Wilsbach said. During World War II, the Tinian North Airfield served as the operational base for the largest B-29 bomber fleet. Describing the airfield as having extensive pavement hidden beneath an overgrown jungle, he revealed plans to clear the jungle between now and summertime. The goal is to transform the site into a comprehensive facility upon completion. Tinian, positioned approximately 200 kilometers north of Guam within the Northern Mariana Islands, is undergoing a revitalization in line with the US Air Force’s operational strategy, Agile Combat Employment. This strategic approach, a departure from post-Cold War era tactics, involves deliberately relocating aircraft to various sites across the western Pacific. The primary goal is to mitigate vulnerability to potential enemy missile strikes during periods of crisis. As documents released in March revealed, as part of the Air Force’s 2024 budget request, several projects are outlined for Tinian, seeking a budget allocation of US$78 million for the fiscal year. Among these projects is an airfield development initiative encompassing the demolition of World War II-era airfield pavements, clearing and leveling surfaces, and installing drainage, utilities, and secure fencing. Another project focuses on establishing a fuel-pipeline system involving the installation of storage tanks, pipes, and safety equipment to facilitate fuel unloading from ships for transport to the airfield via pipeline and truck. Additionally, a parking-apron project is detailed, which aims to pave areas designated for aircraft parking and taxiways. The taxiways must adhere to the Pentagon’s standards for ground control operations for large-frame aircraft, as specified in the documents. The proposed apron size would accommodate up to 12 KC-135 and KC-46 tanker aircraft and the necessary fueling equipment. Tinian currently houses one international airfield, while Tinian North Airfield, once the most extensive B-29 base during World War II, lies largely concealed by jungle growth. However, the runways and taxiways remain intact. Tinian was captured from Japanese control by US forces in the summer of 1944, toward the end of World War II. The northern expanse of the island hosted a substantial and historically momentous airfield, famously recognized as North Field. This airfield played a crucial role in Operation Silverplate, serving as the departure point for two specially modified B-29 bombers on separate sorties, marking the sole operational use of nuclear weapons to date. Beyond these historic missions, North Field was instrumental as the launch site for many bomber and reconnaissance flights conducted over Japan and across the Western Pacific during the latter phases of the war. In the aftermath of World War II, the airfield witnessed a substantial deterioration in maintenance, resulting in the decline of its expansive parallel runways, aprons, and supporting infrastructure. The US Air Force is now intensifying its endeavors to enhance the airfield’s capabilities to accommodate fighter jets, bombers, and significant support aircraft. These expanded capabilities align with the standards commonly met by the nearby Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. However, the US believes that if Andersen Air Force Base faces disruption due to enemy actions, notably those from China, or natural disasters, this facility on Tinian would be crucial in ensuring continuity and resilience in US military operations in the Pacific region. https://pagesix.com/2023/12/20/celebrity-news/hulk-hogan-70-gets-baptized-surrenders-to-jesus-greatest-day-of-my-life/ Hulk Hogan, 70, gets baptized, ‘surrenders’ to Jesus: ‘Greatest day of my life’ WWE icon Hulk Hogan has been baptized. His ceremony took place at Indian Rocks Baptist Church in Florida, as noted by the social media slideshow he shared Wednesday night. “Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life,” the 70-year-old star captioned the post. “No worries, no hate, no judgment… only love!” Hogan’s slideshow included a video of him and his wife, Sky Daily Hogan, submerging themselves in a pool of water and resurfacing with huge grins on their faces. They were both garbed with white clothing, with the former pro wrestler rocking his signature bandana and a gold cross necklace. A photo included at the end of the post appeared to show Hulk and Sky, plus others, bowing their heads in prayer. The Indian Rocks Baptist Church took to its Instagram Story to celebrate the “Hogan Knows Best” alum’s special moment.

This week, David Plotz, John Dickerson, and Emily Bazelon discuss the surprise deal for climate legislation, new January 6th revelations, and the deadliest road in America.  Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Carol D. Leonnig, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey and Spencer S. Hsu for The Washington Post: “Justice Dept. Investigating Trump's Actions In Jan. 6 Criminal Probe” Carol D. Leonnig and Maria Sacchetti for The Washington Post: “Secret Service Watchdog Knew in February That Texts Had Been Purged” Forbidden City, by Vanessa Hua Dan Kaufman for The New Yorker: “Will Wisconsin's Republicans Make Voting Meaningless, or Just Difficult?” Richard L. Hasen for Slate: “What the Critics Get Incredibly Wrong about the Collins-Manchin Election Bill” Marin Cogan for Vox: “The Deadliest Road In America” Robert James Schneider, Rebecca Sanders, Frank Proulx, Hamideh Moayyed for the Journal of Transport and Land Use: “United States Fatal Pedestrian Crash Hot Spot Locations And Characteristics” Unsafe At Any Speed, by Ralph Nader Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity, by Charles L. Marohn Jr.  Allison Russell's Outside Child John Dickerson for Slate: “Getting Naked Every Night: Girlyman and the Pursuit of Creative Risk.” Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Jonathan Bernstein for Rolling Stone: “‘She Schooled Us All': Inside Joni Mitchell's Stunning Return to Newport Folk Festival”; David McCabe and Mike Isaac for The New York Times: “F.T.C. Sues to Block Meta's Virtual Reality Deal as It Confronts Big Tech” John: Oliver Whang for The New York Times: “‘Parentese' Is Truly a Lingua Franca, Global Study Finds” David: April Rubin and Jesus Jiménez for The New York Times: “4,000 Mistreated Beagles Need Homes. These Folks Stepped Up.” Listener chatter from Mark Allender: The Dollop #283: “James Clark McReynolds, the Worst Supreme Court Justice Ever” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, John Dickerson, and Emily Bazelon discuss the surprise deal for climate legislation, new January 6th revelations, and the deadliest road in America.  Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Carol D. Leonnig, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey and Spencer S. Hsu for The Washington Post: “Justice Dept. Investigating Trump's Actions In Jan. 6 Criminal Probe” Carol D. Leonnig and Maria Sacchetti for The Washington Post: “Secret Service Watchdog Knew in February That Texts Had Been Purged” Forbidden City, by Vanessa Hua Dan Kaufman for The New Yorker: “Will Wisconsin's Republicans Make Voting Meaningless, or Just Difficult?” Richard L. Hasen for Slate: “What the Critics Get Incredibly Wrong about the Collins-Manchin Election Bill” Marin Cogan for Vox: “The Deadliest Road In America” Robert James Schneider, Rebecca Sanders, Frank Proulx, Hamideh Moayyed for the Journal of Transport and Land Use: “United States Fatal Pedestrian Crash Hot Spot Locations And Characteristics” Unsafe At Any Speed, by Ralph Nader Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity, by Charles L. Marohn Jr.  Allison Russell's Outside Child John Dickerson for Slate: “Getting Naked Every Night: Girlyman and the Pursuit of Creative Risk.” Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Jonathan Bernstein for Rolling Stone: “‘She Schooled Us All': Inside Joni Mitchell's Stunning Return to Newport Folk Festival”; David McCabe and Mike Isaac for The New York Times: “F.T.C. Sues to Block Meta's Virtual Reality Deal as It Confronts Big Tech” John: Oliver Whang for The New York Times: “‘Parentese' Is Truly a Lingua Franca, Global Study Finds” David: April Rubin and Jesus Jiménez for The New York Times: “4,000 Mistreated Beagles Need Homes. These Folks Stepped Up.” Listener chatter from Mark Allender: The Dollop #283: “James Clark McReynolds, the Worst Supreme Court Justice Ever” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, John Dickerson, and Emily Bazelon discuss the surprise deal for climate legislation, new January 6th revelations, and the deadliest road in America.  Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Carol D. Leonnig, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey and Spencer S. Hsu for The Washington Post: “Justice Dept. Investigating Trump's Actions In Jan. 6 Criminal Probe” Carol D. Leonnig and Maria Sacchetti for The Washington Post: “Secret Service Watchdog Knew in February That Texts Had Been Purged” Forbidden City, by Vanessa Hua Dan Kaufman for The New Yorker: “Will Wisconsin's Republicans Make Voting Meaningless, or Just Difficult?” Richard L. Hasen for Slate: “What the Critics Get Incredibly Wrong about the Collins-Manchin Election Bill” Marin Cogan for Vox: “The Deadliest Road In America” Robert James Schneider, Rebecca Sanders, Frank Proulx, Hamideh Moayyed for the Journal of Transport and Land Use: “United States Fatal Pedestrian Crash Hot Spot Locations And Characteristics” Unsafe At Any Speed, by Ralph Nader Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity, by Charles L. Marohn Jr.  Allison Russell's Outside Child John Dickerson for Slate: “Getting Naked Every Night: Girlyman and the Pursuit of Creative Risk.” Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Jonathan Bernstein for Rolling Stone: “‘She Schooled Us All': Inside Joni Mitchell's Stunning Return to Newport Folk Festival”; David McCabe and Mike Isaac for The New York Times: “F.T.C. Sues to Block Meta's Virtual Reality Deal as It Confronts Big Tech” John: Oliver Whang for The New York Times: “‘Parentese' Is Truly a Lingua Franca, Global Study Finds” David: April Rubin and Jesus Jiménez for The New York Times: “4,000 Mistreated Beagles Need Homes. These Folks Stepped Up.” Listener chatter from Mark Allender: The Dollop #283: “James Clark McReynolds, the Worst Supreme Court Justice Ever” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Richard Hasen, author of Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics—And How to Cure It. Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. His previous books include The Voting Wars, Plutocrats United, The Justice of Contradictions, and Election Meltdown. He lives in Studio City, CA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The US Senate votes today on a measure that would codify Roe v. Wade. Democratic leadership strongly backs its passage but didn't expect it to get close to the filibuster-proof 60 votes required. The purpose is more symbolic, shining a spotlight on which senators – and which parties – are for and against abortion rights. The ACLU's Alexa Kolbi-Molinas recently argued a case on abortion rights before the Supreme Court and joins the show.  Also in today's episode: Audrey Diwan, director of "Happening," a new French film that takes a bracing look at the realities of life before abortion was legal ... Professor and author Richard L. Hasen on how to cure the disinformation that poisons politics. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Professor Richard L. Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, discusses his new book, “Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics — and How to Cure It.” Professor Danielle Citron moderated the talk. The event was sponsored by the LawTech Center. (University of Virginia School of Law, April 28, 2022)

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.

So far this year at least 17 US states have enacted 28 new laws aimed at voter suppression and election subversion, and nearly 400 further bills are proposed. In a recent address President Biden described this push to restrict voting rights as the greatest threat that American democracy has faced since the Civil War. So what's behind this attack on voting rights and can anything be done to stop it? Guest: Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California–Irvine School of Law and the author of Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy.

Georgia, Texas and other states are pursuing legislation that will make it more difficult to vote, especially for voters of color. Less attention has been paid to a second threat: giving the legislature a greater hand in who counts votes and how they are counted. Will this reform improve or damage the integrity of elections and the confidence of voters in their results? An impressive panel joins us: - Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine - Michael T. Morley, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law - Moderated by Tammy Patrick, Senior Advisor, Elections Program, Democracy Fund

00:00 Republicans cried about voter fraud for decades without providing evidence 01:00 Now Republicans have the chance to provide substantial evidence 04:00 New Yorker podcast: Three Views of Voter Fraud, https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/three-views-of-voter-fraud 30:00 Why did Fox call Arizona first? 31:00 Why did Fox News push for immigration amnesty? https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1323865681427836934 1:06:00 Anatoly Karlin: The world map of Biden “recognitions” is quite instructive, https://www.unz.com/akarlin/biden-recognitions/ 1:08:00 Richard L. Hasen on Election Meltdowns, https://lareviewofbooks.org/av/rick-hasen/ 1:22:00 Episode 1181 Scott Adams: Why President Trump Still Has the Advantage. Crazy, Right?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vnDL4yFrA 1:58:00 Dooovid joins 2:04:00 Cults in Orthodox Judaism 2:06:00 My Latest Book (Part 23) || Marc Shapiro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acn7w5ADP04 2:17:00 Donald Trump & Orthodox Jews 2:50:30 Why did Trump lose the 2020 election? 2:52:45 Republicans jumping ship off Trump train NYT: How President Trump's false claim of voter fraud is being used to disenfranchise Americans, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/magazine/trump-voter-fraud.html 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 https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/07/saturdays-media-declaration-is-a-naked-attempt-to-silence-republicans-and-nothing-has-changed/#.X6cM_M99sRI.twitter Polls, questions, super chats: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Periscope: https://www.pscp.tv/lukeford/1nAJEAnVRDaJL Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 Reb Dooovid: https://twitter.com/RebDoooovid https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Book an online Alexander Technique lesson with Luke: https://alexander90210.com Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation's leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen's election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the 2020 presidential campaign begins to take shape, there is widespread distrust of the fairness and accuracy of American elections. In Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy (Yale UP, 2020), Richard L. Hasen uses riveting stories illustrating four factors increasing the mistrust. Voter suppression has escalated as a Republican tool aimed to depress turnout of likely Democratic voters, fueling suspicion. Pockets of incompetence in election administration, often in large cities controlled by Democrats, have created an opening to claims of unfairness. Old‑fashioned and new‑fangled dirty tricks, including foreign and domestic misinformation campaigns via social media, threaten electoral integrity. Inflammatory rhetoric about “stolen” elections supercharges distrust among hardcore partisans. Taking into account how each of these threats has manifested in recent years—most notably in the 2016 and 2018 elections—Hasen offers concrete steps that need to be taken to restore trust in American elections before the democratic process is completely undermined. This is an indispensable analysis, from the nation’s leading election-law expert, of the key threats to the 2020 American presidential election. Professor Hasen’s election law blog can be found here. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, election law expert, Professor Richard L. Hasen speaks with, Thurgood Marshall Institute Senior Researcher, Dr. Algernon Austin about the many obstacles to voting facing African Americans this November. Professor Hasen and Dr. Austin discuss how this election is expected to be different from any other and how voters need to prepare. This podcast is a product of the Thurgood Marshall Institute (TMI), an interdisciplinary center of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). This episode is hosted by Dr. Algernon Austin and produced by Keecee DeVenny.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed several problems with the American elections system, but even outside of global pandemic, Americans are increasingly questioning the fairness and accuracy of our elections. In his new book Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, law professor Richard L. Hasen examines sources of voters' distrust. In this new episode of Brennan Center Live, he speaks with legal expert Victoria Bassetti and proposes steps to restore voters' confidence.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed several problems with the American elections system, but even outside of global pandemic, Americans are increasingly questioning the fairness and accuracy of our elections. In his new book Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, law professor Richard L. Hasen examines sources of voters’ distrust. In this new episode of Brennan Center Live, he speaks with legal expert Victoria Bassetti and proposes steps to restore voters' confidence.

With the American electoral system under unprecedented stress, an expert committee led by legal scholar Richard L. Hasen (UCI Law and author of Election Meltdown) has put forth a report of urgent recommendations in law, media, politics and technology to safeguard a free and fair November election. In this episode, Hasen joins our hosts Ned Foley (OSU Moritz College of Law) and Franita Tolson (USC Gould School of Law) to discuss the 14 recommended solutions, including his apt suggestion that voters “flatten the absentee ballot curve” by spreading their ballot applications over a longer period of time.

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

This week DeRay, Brittany, Clint, and Sam discuss Seattle's smartphone voting, Florida's felon fines, Houston's cancer clusters, and criticism of the 1619 Project. Then, DeRay sits down with election specialist Richard L. Hasen to examine frightening gaps in our voting security, regional pockets of governmental incompetence, and why he thinks we're in the midst of democracy's meltdown. Also, please watch Matthew A. Cherry's Oscar-nominated animated short film Hair Love. Show Links The Verge: Seattle is the first area in the US where residents can vote via smartphones NPR: Florida Supreme Court Rules Convicted Felons Must Pay Fines To Vote The Boston Review: The fight over the 1619 Project The Houston Chronicle: Map shows racist government policies that contributed to conditions for Houston cancer clusters

In this episode of the Fiction/Non/Fiction podcast, New York Magazine senior correspondent Irin Carmon (co-author of Notorious RBG) and novelist and Boston University law professor Jay Wexler (author of Tuttle in the Balance) talk about news coverage and fictional depictions of the Supreme Court. How partisan is the Court becoming? Why use humor to write fiction about the nine Justices? Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Vladimir Nabokov's student—what effect has this had on her writing, and how are she and other liberal justices contending with their Trump-appointed colleagues? Guests: ●     Irin Carmon ●     Jay Wexler Readings for the Episode: ●     Irin Carmon's archive at New York Magazine ●     “Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas Are Officially at War Over Abortion,” The Cut, May 28, 2019, by Irin Carmon ●     “The big cases: Here are the U.S. Supreme Court's most consequential cases in its current term, which runs from Oct. 2018 to June 2019.” By Han Huang, Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung, Reuters Graphics ●     Tuttle in the Balance, by Jay Wexler ●     The Adventures of Ed Tuttle, Associate Justice, and Other Stories, by Jay Wexler ●     Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburgby Irin Carmon, Shana Knizhnik ●     Supreme Courtship by Christopher Buckley ●     Our Non-Christian Nation: How Atheists, Satanists, Pagans, and Others Are Demanding Their Rightful Place in Public Lifeby Jay Wexler ●     Ari Richter, artist ●     “The Census Case Is Shaping Up to Be the Biggest Travesty Since Bush v. Gore,” by Richard L. Hasen, Slate, June 25, 2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During his long tenure on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia—engaging as well as caustic and openly ideological—moved the Court to the right. In this eye-opening new book, legal scholar Richard L. Hasen analyzes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s complex legacy as a conservative legal thinker and disruptive public intellectual who was crucial to reshaping jurisprudence on issues from abortion to gun rights to separation of powers. Hasen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky in a special lunchtime conversation about the complex legacy of one of the most influential justices ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

With federal proposals like the DISCLOSE Act sidelined by Republicans in Congress, some state governments officials, including state secretaries of state, have sought to place limitations on campaign speech through other methods. State legislators have proposed new state laws against “dark money” and advocated new disclosure regimes as well as increased restrictions on speech and political engagement by key public officials who coordinate on a national level. City lawmakers have proposed public financing regimes as well as matching funds, which are often far more restrictive than with state law. State Secretaries of State have proposed rules to implement failed campaign finance reform proposals and impose heightened donor disclosure regulations as well as requiring more detailed financial disclosures from non-profit organizations. Do these campaign speech proposals and increased pushes toward greater disclosure lead to more transparency and freer and fairer elections, or do these efforts infringe upon First Amendment rights?Professor Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, IrvineProfessor Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Joseph Rose, Gubson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

With federal proposals like the DISCLOSE Act sidelined by Republicans in Congress, some state governments officials, including state secretaries of state, have sought to place limitations on campaign speech through other methods. State legislators have proposed new state laws against “dark money” and advocated new disclosure regimes as well as increased restrictions on speech and political engagement by key public officials who coordinate on a national level. City lawmakers have proposed public financing regimes as well as matching funds, which are often far more restrictive than with state law. State Secretaries of State have proposed rules to implement failed campaign finance reform proposals and impose heightened donor disclosure regulations as well as requiring more detailed financial disclosures from non-profit organizations. Do these campaign speech proposals and increased pushes toward greater disclosure lead to more transparency and freer and fairer elections, or do these efforts infringe upon First Amendment rights?Professor Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, IrvineProfessor Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Joseph Rose, Gubson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Richard L. Hasen has written Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016). Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In the midst of the most expensive presidential contest in U.S. history, is money buying access and influence? Are super PACs corrupting the democratic process? Or are eager supporter simply exercising their First Amendment rights? In Plutocrats United, Hasen argues that these may be the wrong questions and the long-standing debate between corruption and free speech – so long a part of constitutional discussions of the issues – is in need of an overhaul. Instead, he suggests that a renewed focus on political equality could reshape the way the country and the Supreme Court considered the role of money in politics. Hasen makes specific policy recommendations for what a new campaign finance regime might look like, and why this new approach would advance the democracy as well as the principle of political equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard L. Hasen has written Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016). Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In the midst of the most expensive presidential contest in U.S. history, is money buying access and influence? Are super PACs corrupting the democratic process? Or are eager supporter simply exercising their First Amendment rights? In Plutocrats United, Hasen argues that these may be the wrong questions and the long-standing debate between corruption and free speech – so long a part of constitutional discussions of the issues – is in need of an overhaul. Instead, he suggests that a renewed focus on political equality could reshape the way the country and the Supreme Court considered the role of money in politics. Hasen makes specific policy recommendations for what a new campaign finance regime might look like, and why this new approach would advance the democracy as well as the principle of political equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard L. Hasen has written Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016). Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In the midst of the most expensive presidential contest in U.S. history, is money buying access and influence? Are super PACs corrupting the democratic process? Or are eager supporter simply exercising their First Amendment rights? In Plutocrats United, Hasen argues that these may be the wrong questions and the long-standing debate between corruption and free speech – so long a part of constitutional discussions of the issues – is in need of an overhaul. Instead, he suggests that a renewed focus on political equality could reshape the way the country and the Supreme Court considered the role of money in politics. Hasen makes specific policy recommendations for what a new campaign finance regime might look like, and why this new approach would advance the democracy as well as the principle of political equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard L. Hasen has written Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016). Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In the midst of the most expensive presidential contest in U.S. history, is money buying access and influence? Are super PACs corrupting the democratic process? Or are eager supporter simply exercising their First Amendment rights? In Plutocrats United, Hasen argues that these may be the wrong questions and the long-standing debate between corruption and free speech – so long a part of constitutional discussions of the issues – is in need of an overhaul. Instead, he suggests that a renewed focus on political equality could reshape the way the country and the Supreme Court considered the role of money in politics. Hasen makes specific policy recommendations for what a new campaign finance regime might look like, and why this new approach would advance the democracy as well as the principle of political equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard L. Hasen has written Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016). Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In the midst of the most expensive presidential contest in U.S. history, is money buying access and influence? Are super PACs corrupting the democratic process? Or are eager supporter simply exercising their First Amendment rights? In Plutocrats United, Hasen argues that these may be the wrong questions and the long-standing debate between corruption and free speech – so long a part of constitutional discussions of the issues – is in need of an overhaul. Instead, he suggests that a renewed focus on political equality could reshape the way the country and the Supreme Court considered the role of money in politics. Hasen makes specific policy recommendations for what a new campaign finance regime might look like, and why this new approach would advance the democracy as well as the principle of political equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine School of Law. He is a renowned expert on election law, legislation, remedies, and torts. His newest book is "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." In this episode of UCI Law Talks, recorded at a book talk, Prof. Hasen discusses the contentious issue of campaign financing, with commentary by Dean Chemerinsky. In Plutocrats United, Prof. Hasen argues that both left and right avoid the key issue of the new Citizens United era: balancing political inequality with free speech. More about Prof. Hasen: www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ More about his new book: http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300212457/plutocrats-united

Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine School of Law. His areas of expertise are election law, legislation, remedies, and torts. In this episode of UCI Law Talks, he discusses the dynamic challenges posed by battles to reshape election law, including the upcoming Supreme Court case, Evenwel v. Abbott, deciding the “one person, one vote” issue. Find out what he dubs a potential “political earthquake.” http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

Before 2006, not a single US state required voters to show identification before marking a ballot. But now, 30 states have enacted some sort of voter identification law. Are these laws necessary to prevent voter fraud or are laws being passed to discourage low income groups, the elderly and minorities from voting? Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Craig Williams, joins Professor Richard L. Hasen, from the University of California, Irvine and Wendy Weiser, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, to talk voter ID laws in battleground states, voter purges and the potential impact on the upcoming election.