A new paper by Ryan Claassen and Michael Easley with this abstract:

The voting wars rank among the most rancorous and active partisan battles in an era defined by extreme partisan animus. The current battle lines formed decades ago, but neither party has a monopoly on protecting voting rights or preventing fraud. Instead we theorize partisan positions in voting wars reflect beliefs about assembling winning coalitions. Sometimes elections are won by turning out supporters and sometimes elections are won by preventing opponents from voting. Which brings us to the current conventional wisdom about turnout: the Democrats would win if everyone voted. The turnout myth is as strong as it is flawed and we investigate whether it is at the heart of the current voting wars. The turnout myth has received extensive scholarly attention, but public belief in the myth has never been examined nor has its role in public attitudes about restrictive voting laws. Toward that end we fielded a series of surveys with new measures of belief in the turnout myth. We find that Democrats’ turnout myth beliefs shape their positions on restrictive voting laws, but Republican support for restrictive voting rules is dominated by beliefs that voting fraud is a major problem. In addition to beliefs having different effects, further analyses reveal vast partisan differences in beliefs as well. Protecting the integrity of American elections will require finding common cause among partisans with very different beliefs and motivations.

Discussing vote-by-mail (not surprisingly, given Paul’s expertise on the topic).

Nick Corasaniti in The NY Times on the retention elections for three seats held by Democrats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: “What’s at stake is nothing less than control of the highest court in the most important swing state in the country.”

I would point out that previous rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, including in 2020, raised suspicions on judicial overreaching among SCOTUS members and potentially provoked invocation of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, which eventually led to Moore v. Harper. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were to stray too far in its interpretation of relevant state laws, including the state’s constitution, in 2028, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a majority of SCOTUS intervening based upon the standard it announced in Moore v. Harper.

It’s not exactly election law news, narrowly defined, but it seems significant enough to worth noting: Trump has filed a Florida state-law defamation complaint against the New York Times, several of its star reporters, and also Penguin Random House and the authors of the book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. The suit seeks $15 billion–yes, that’s billions with a b–in damages. There’s plenty of news coverage of it this morning; it leads the POLITICO Playbook newsletter, where I first saw it.

I know that Trump secured a settlement with Paramount (CBS), and maybe that’s his strategy here. It is perhaps ironic to recall that the landmark defamation case New York Times v. Sullivan involved a lawsuit in a state court by a public official against the same newspaper. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have called for reconsidering that First Amendment precedent. We will see what if anything develops on that front, especially in the wake of calls (including by AG Pam Bondi) to suppress hate speech in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s horrific assassination. (Bondi’s remarks provoked this commentary on the National Review.) I don’t want to be a First Amendment alarmist–and as anyone who’s taught a First Amendment course knows (it’s been quite a few years for me), there are significant line-drawing issues in many areas of First Amendment law–but it’s obviously essential for any health democracy that politicians in power cannot suppress dissent because they don’t like criticism of their conduct or character. (I learned First Amendment law from the great Vince Blasi, who emphasized this key point, including in his article The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory. Another one of his articles, The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment, which I had the privilege to cite-check as a junior law review staff member, also seems relevant at this moment.)

I’m looking forward to listening to this Odd Years podcast, given David Wasserman’s unsurpassed expertise on congressional redistricting.

ABC4 [Salt Lake City] reports, stating that the state supreme court’s order “means that unless another stay is granted, presumably by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Utah Legislature will need to draw new congressional maps by September 25.” I’m… Continue reading

The Guardian reports. I doubt that defying court orders is the best way to combat election denialism. The story discusses Democrats in Georgia who were found in contempt of court for refusing to appoint Republican election commissioners on the ground… Continue reading

I will be at the O’Connell conference. Details here.

I’ve posted this new article on SSRN. Here’s the abstract: This essay, a contribution to the Ohio State Law Journal symposium on the important new book Aligning Election Law by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, addresses the value of the alignment principle for… Continue reading

In our first week, we published three additional essays with views on several ways to address the toxic political culture of our era, in addition to Randy Kennedy’s essay excerpted earlier here entitled: NOT By Any Means Necessary. From John … Continue reading

Courthouse News Service (via Electionline).

Votebeat (via Electionline)

NPR’s All Things Considered