Category Archives: legislation and legislatures

“Thune Moves to Speed Trump Nominees Past Democratic Blockade”

legislation and legislatures, political polarization

NYT:

Republicans took the first step on Monday toward changing the Senate’s rules to speed the confirmations of Trump administration nominees being slowed by Democratic opposition, touching off the latest in a yearslong tit for tat between the two parties that has weakened the filibuster.

The move is a response to Democrats’ refusal to allow President Trump’s nominees to be considered, which has slowed their confirmations and frustrated the president. But its consequences will reach beyond Mr. Trump’s tenure, effectively whittling down the ability of the minority to register any opposition to executive branch nominees below the cabinet level.

Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, made the first move on Monday by introducing a resolution that would group 48 of Mr. Trump’s nominees together to allow them to be considered and voted on as a group. That will queue up a complex series of floor votes this week and next that, if successful, would create new Senate precedents meant to help Republicans clear a growing backlog of nominees.

Republicans, who hold 53 seats, will try to muscle through the rules change using a simple majority, a tactic known as “going nuclear,” in part because of the charged partisan cloud it can leave over an institution that once prided itself on operating according to consensus.

t is the latest change to chip away at longstanding Senate precedent in the face of an increasingly polarized political environment.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Mr. Thune framed the rules change as a necessary response to what he framed as an unprecedented Democratic blockade against fast confirmation of any of Mr. Trump’s nominees, including lower-level picks that have traditionally been confirmed by voice votes or by unanimous consent.

Democrats, staunchly opposed to Mr. Trump’s efforts to reshape the executive branch and insisting more attention be paid to nominees they say are unqualified, have insisted on formal votes for each person, delaying approval of the president’s picks for dozens of jobs….

Changes to the Senate’s precedents, which govern how the chamber works, are supposed to require the approval of 67 senators, a barrier meant to make them more difficult to adopt. In using what is known as the nuclear option, members of the majority party instead attempt to take an action that has never been allowed before and then hold a number of procedural votes to overrule any objection by the minority and proceed, thus setting a new precedent that replaces what has been done in the past.

Democrats used the tactic in 2013 to lower the vote threshold on most nominees to a simple majority rather than 60 votes, a response to Senate Republicans systematically blocking a series of Obama administration judicial appointees.

Republicans then retaliated in 2017 to lower the threshold for Supreme Court nominees, allowing Mr. Trump to install three justices during his first term….

Share this:

White House and Allies Blocking GAO Inquiries

legislation and legislatures

NYT reports:

A federal watchdog has opened dozens of investigations to determine if President Trump and his top aides have illegally withheld billions of dollars in congressionally approved funds.

Now, Republican lawmakers are working alongside the White House to stymie those inquiries and the officials conducting them, in a move that could help Mr. Trump seize more control over the nation’s budget.

The attacks target the Government Accountability Office, a roughly century-old agency formed to help Congress keep track of federal spending. The legislative office primarily produces detailed reports on ways that Washington can save money, sometimes rankling administrations that are not so keen about its allegations of waste.

But oversight officials have recently found themselves in a direct and highly unusual confrontation with the White House over the power of the purse.

Share this:

“This Year’s Election Bills Focus On Citizenship, Ranked Choice Voting”

election administration, legislation and legislatures, The Voting Wars

NCSL’s election bill roundup notes the shift of this year’s crop:

With most legislatures having adjourned, the number of election bills introduced was 3,160, with 331 of them enacted into law across 43 states, according to NCSL tracking. Although this is a significant increase from the 2,017 bills NCSL tracked at the same point in the 2024 session, the number of enactments last year—218—was only slightly off this year’s count. It’s common to see an increase in election-related legislation following a presidential election, and this has certainly proved true in 2025.

With election bills introduced on a wide range of subjects, some notable trends and consistently popular topics came to the fore. Among a range of enactment trends, citizenship and voter identification continued their 2024 resurgence as areas of high legislative interest, bans on ranked-choice voting continue to increase, and the standardization of election dates stood out.

Share this:

“Recovering from Rucho: How States Can Create National Partisan Fairness”

legislation and legislatures, political parties, redistricting

Jamie Piltch and Aaron Goldzimer have a new piece in the Wash. U. L. Rev. Online:

Rucho v. Common Cause and the failure to pass H.R. 1 have left national gerrymandering reform on life support. At present, however, states committed to creating fair maps limit themselves to considering their own political makeup when doing so. This internal approach risks the possibility that states committed to fairness subvert that value, as their refusal to consider national political data and other states’ maps may lock in an unfair map nationwide if other states gerrymander. This internal focus therefore also creates the possibility that reform-minded states fail to protect their voters’ interests in Congress.

This Essay proposes a novel path forward: a new redistricting criterion that allows states to prioritize national partisan fairness, rather than statewide fairness. Federalisms new and old justify this new criterion on a theoretical basis, while the seeming impossibility of national reform in Congress or federal courts justifies it on a practical one. The Essay explains how the consideration of other states’ maps would allow states to make the national Congressional map fair on net and walks through the mechanics necessary for this criterion’s implementation.

As the authors note, this really works only if a state draws congressional lines after most other states with sizable populations are done, and I’m skeptical that the race to be last would be feasible in a world with mid-decade redistricting possibility. (Or, if feasible, that it wouldn’t have unanticipated consequences of its own.)  Which means I still think national legislation makes the most sense problem of national scale.  But if, as they say, national legislation isn’t available . . . .

Share this:

“Minnesota assassination prompts many lawmakers to wonder: Is service worth the danger?”

legislation and legislatures, political polarization,

From the Alabama Reflector, with the subhead based on a Brennan Center report:

Nearly 9 in 10 state lawmakers reported facing insults and 4 in 10 facing harassment and threats.

And these threats aren’t evenly distributed:

Women were three to four times more likely than men to experience abuse related to their gender, according to the report. And people of color were more than three times as likely as white officeholders to endure race-based abuse.

Share this:

“Hawaiʻi Senator Didn’t Disclose Possible Conflict Of Interest Before Voting”

conflict of interest laws, ethics investigations, legislation and legislatures

From the Honolulu City Beat article:

Donovan Dela Cruz voted four times in favor of passing a bill designed to protect māmaki tea, even though he owns a māmaki tea business.

. . .

The Senate’s rules require that members cannot vote on legislation if there is “a direct financial interest” in the legislation, defined as affecting the legislator’s “personal business, property or financial interest.”

Share this:

Issacharoff and Muller, “Relocating Nationwide Injunctions”

court decisions, legislation and legislatures, Supreme Court

Earlier this year, I wrote about how potential reform over the “universal” or
“nationwide” injunction might affect a set of election law cases. The Supreme Court’s recent oral argument in Trump v. CASA has brought the debate about nationwide injunctions (and related concerns about forum shopping) in the federal courts to the fore.

Sam Issacharoff and I have co-authored a piece in Just Security, “Relocating Nationwide Injunctions.” Here’s how it opens:

Last month’s argument in Trump v. CASA provided the Supreme Court with its latest confrontation with nationwide injunctions. The underlying case challenges an executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship. But the issue before the Court concerns whether a single federal district court may stop the enforcement of an executive order on a nationwide basis while litigation is pending. Nationwide injunctions raise many difficult questions, including the potential mismatch between the litigants before a court and the scope of relief sought. But they also heighten concerns about forum shopping to find a single sympathetic judge. We believe that the concern about plaintiffs seeking an outlier court can be addressed relatively simply.

What if there were some national judicial body with the authority to look at any case seeking a nationwide injunction and decide where a suitable forum might lie? We argue that such a body already exists, although it is thought of more as a home for mass torts and other forms of complex litigation, rather than as reconciling competing claims to a proper forum for nationwide injunctive cases against the executive—the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Share this:

“Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen’ move that would have helped his election case”

legislation and legislatures

Chicago Tribune:

In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago.

Harmon’s move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker’s upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote.

The Oak Park Democrat’s maneuver, characterized by critics as “brazen” and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard.

Blowback to Harmon’s action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results.

“This is a terrible look,” said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. “I don’t recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.”

Share this:

“First Circuit wary of restoring voting ban on anti-trans Maine lawmaker”

legislation and legislatures

Courthouse News Service:

First Circuit panel of Joe Biden-appointed judges seemed wary about reinstating a voting ban against a firebrand Maine legislator who had criticized a transgender high school athlete.

Earlier this year, Maine Representative Laurel Libby was censured by the state’s Speaker of the House after she posted a photo on Facebook of a transgender student athlete who won a girls’ pole vault event after placing fifth in similar boys’ competition two years ago.

In the post, Libby mentioned the transgender athlete’s name and included a photo of her face, which Speaker Ryan Fecteau had said could cause safety concerns. Libby refused, despite commenters on the post threatening the minor with violence, after which the Republican was officially censured following a party vote.

In her complaint against Fecteau and the House clerk, Libby says she was unconstitutionally prohibited from participating in any floor debates or having her vote counted unless she apologized, leaving her 9,000 constituents “without a voice or vote.”

State officials argue the censure is a state issue and federal judges should not intervene in Maine’s legislative process.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island declined Libby’s request for an injunction, as did the First Circuit. Last month, however, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to allow her to participate in debates and votes pending the outcome of her complaint. Libby tweeted that the ruling was “a win for free speech — and for the Constitution.”

Share this:

“The Age Issue: More of Congress Is 70-Plus Than Ever Before”

legislation and legislatures

Elena Shao in the New York Times:

When the current Congress was convened in January, there were nearly 120 members who were 70 or older — 86 in the House, including nonvoting delegates, and 33 in the Senate. This number, which is unmatched in modern history, included 14 octogenarians in the House, five in the Senate, and 91-year-old Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

Seniority and longevity have long been rewarded, both at the polls and internally within the two major parties. Even so, some of the country’s oldest lawmakers have faced scrutiny in recent years over age and fitness to serve after very public episodes of what looked to be disorientation or decline.

Share this:

“Maryland’s primary elections are unconstitutional, lawsuit alleges”

election law and constitutional law, legislation and legislatures, political parties, primaries

The WaPo has a story on independent voters claiming a right to participate in primary elections under the state constitution.  The complaint is here.

Existing Supreme Court precedent on the primary process and the First Amendment mostly gives the keys to parties to choose their electorates by opening or closing primaries as they wish.  But nothing in federal law requires the state to hold a partisan primary at all.  (States with “top X” primaries generally indicate candidates’ partisan preference without purporting to choose a frontrunner on the party’s behalf.)

Meanwhile, Nevada’s Assembly speaker introduced a last-minute bill (the session ends next week) to open up primaries to independent voters, over the apparent objections of state Republicans.  (See the opening sentence of the last paragraph.)

Share this: