I was very fortunate to be able to attend this symposium at Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, where I presented the idea of a “Top 3” presidential election system based on Common Ground Democracy principles. I also spoke more broadly about the need to assure that the winner of a presidential election receives a majority, not merely a plurality, of votes–and cited examples of where the failure to have a majority-winner requirement caused a candidate to win who clearly did not have the support of a majority of voters. Other speakers focused on ideas for proportional allocation of electoral votes, among other possible reforms of the Electoral College system.

Worthwhile read on the role of Justice Bradley in the Hayes-Tilden dispute.

Today at 10am ET. Adam Liptak has a preview. One thing I’ll be looking for in the argument, from an election law perspective, is the extent to which the immunity issue focuses more narrowly on the specific context of alleged criminality in this case–Trump’s actions as an incumbent president to subvert the electoral process to give him a second term in office that he did not win according to the applicable rules–or instead focuses more broadly on the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in general (relating to such issues as the exercise of military authority as commander-in-chief). I continue to believe that much, if not all, of Trump’s conduct in an effort to subvert the electoral process was not even remotely part of his official duties under Article II as president, because Article II–and the rest of the Constitution–give an incumbent president absolutely no role to play in the Electoral College (and related) procedures concerning presidential elections. But whatever analytic route the Court takes to reach the conclusion that an incumbent president is not immune from attempting to steal from the electorate a second term he did not win, the Court ought to reach that conclusion as quickly as possible. As many others have observed recently, including Liz Cheney, this case could end up being one in which justice delayed is justice denied.

As a follow-up to my previous post on this development, the N.Y. Times is now reporting that Giuliani and Mark Meadows are among those indicted:

“They were among a number of defendants whose names were redacted from the indictment, though it was clear from the context and the descriptions who they were.

“Also indicted were Boris Epshteyn, who remains one of Mr. Trump’s most senior lawyers; Mike Roman, a Trump campaign operative in 2020, and John Eastman, an architect of the fake electors plan. Two other lawyers who advised Mr. Trump and his 2020 campaign were also indicted, Jenna Ellis and Christina Bobb.”

UPDATE: The Washington Post also identifies the same individuals whose names were redacted in the indictment. The Post story also contains extensive details behind the electors scheme:

“Mayes’s case had been squarely focused on local conservatives up until late last year. Then,Arizona prosecutors and investigators met in December with Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney and an architect of the elector strategy who pleaded guilty in Georgia in October to a single felony count of participating in a conspiracy to file false documents. Chesebro provided Mayes’s team with records — some that had been previously unseen — that revealed more information about those involved in the Arizona effort, according to two people familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity to talk about the sensitive conversations. After that, they said the Arizona investigation widened.”

David Daley’s op-ed in Salon. This is an argument I made, at much greater length, in my book Presidential Elections and Majority Rule. The problem is that we seem unable to engage in the structural reforms we need in order to make sure that the winners of elections actually reflect the majority view of the voters who cast their ballots. When will we ever learn? And will it be before it’s too late?