Safe seats mean incumbents only fear being primaried, typically these days from the ideological wings of the parties. Creating more competitive districts is one of a series of reforms I've advocated to combat extremism in our politics. scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol76/is...

I have long argued we should give more weight in redistricting reform to the importance of competitive districts. Maps can be fair in partisan terms, but with everyone in a safe seat. In a new article @profnickstephan.bsky.social and I demonstrate the possibilities for more comp. districts.

Are party leaders going to have the power to construct these lists, as in most list PR systems? Or are voters going to be able to vote on which candidates appear on these lists and in what rank order?

Some PR proponents seek fairness as between the major parties, which seems to motivate this thoughtful piece. But to the extent this would create a 5-6 party House, I think proposals have to contend with arguments I've laid out here. illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-20...

Very interesting take from @rickpildes.bsky.social. I agree that the long-term equilibrium consequence of gutting the VRA is unclear. Unpacking highly-concentrated groups of Democrats could produce more competitive elections. But the short-term consequence is clearly to abet Republican gerrymanders.

The only power states have over congressional districting is the enumerated power in the Elections Clause, Art. I sec. 4. A number of years ago I filed an amicus brief in the SCt arguing that this power should not be understood to include partisan GM....

This was not meant as a criticism of those bringing these cases. It's a difficult strategic judgment call when you believe you have winning legal cases under current law on major issues and concern but uncertainty about exactly how the Supreme Court might ultimately respond.

On the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision, I've published this essay at Bloomberg Law: news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchan...

Hadn't gotten around to posting this, but it was a pleasure to have the kind of extensive substantive discussion that is too rare these days. Blue Cities Blues is devoted to the problems of governance in blue cities.

When you blurb a book against self-interest...

I've published this review essay, The Era of Democratic Dissatisfaction, of Skowronek's new book, The Adaptability Paradox: Political Inclusion and Constitutional Resilience. democracyproject.org/posts/the-er...

I have always said that in any head-on confrontation with the President, the Court was on its strongest ground in the tariffs case. This is not a context in which presidential "defiance" of the Court's decision is possible.

On today's Supreme Court decision on standing in election law cases, here's my post at Election Law Blog: electionlawblog.org?p=153834

I don't think he's going to like @samuelmoyn.bsky.social's new book.

The Court's action in the Chicago national guard case means that if a Pres. believes force is needed to protect federal personnel or property, he must use the US military rather than the national guard. In other words, the Court's opinion takes the national guard option off the table.

This is not to say that a win for the challengers in this case would be terrible. I am persuaded by @rickpildes.bsky.social and Bob Bauer's argument that, given the deregulation of everything else, further deregulation in this case might in fact have beneficial consequences bsky.app/profile/rick...

I've published this essay at Bloomberg Law on the Supreme Court's stay order in the Texas redistricting case Decision has troubling implications for federal court oversight of state law election changes more generally. news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchan...

Today the Supreme Court is hearing a major case on the First Amendment rights of political parties and campaign finance Bob Bauer and I published this essay on the case, arguing that money flowing through the parties, rather than outside groups, is better for the democratic process Link in next post

After Trump v. Slaughter, will there be any independent entities left other than the Federal Reserve? This post addresses Congress' critical effort to ensure the federal election commissions could not be captured by one political party. electionlawblog.org?p=153385

I look forward to defending free speech from its progressive critics — and conservative assailants == as the Tanner Letures Nov. 12 and 13 @princeton.edu A timely topic, sadly lectures.princeton.edu/lectures/202...

Just saw this, glad you enjoyed it.

On Lawfare Daily, @klonick.bsky.social spoke to @rickpildes.bsky.social about his article, “Political Fragmentation in Democracies in the West,” the link between social media and threats to democracy, and the unique way this technology is now impacting the United States political system.

Hat tip to @martylederman.bsky.social

Steve Skowronek has an essay today on "Authoritarianism Then and Now" at the NYU Democracy Project: democracyproject.org/posts/author...

On fusion voting and the NJ Supreme Court: A new political party called the Moderate Party is challenging on state constitutional grounds NJ's ban on fusion voting. The court is considering whether to hear this challenge. I published an essay urging the court to take the case. More below..

Here's an analogy. If the government imposes financial costs on you, you have standing. But if the government is beneficent and engages in spending you believe is illegal, it can be difficult to find anyone with standing to challenge.

Marty does not understand what's at stake in this case. Political parties and voters have always had standing to challenge voting rules they allege violate their rights, by BURDENING their right to vote. That's the Crawford case...

When legal populists of the right mean legal populists of the left. Today's essay in the NYU Democracy Project from Jonathan Mitchell: "Judicial Supremacy and American Democracy" democracyproject.org/posts/judici...

The Court heard oral argument today in an important election law standing case. I published in advance an essay on the case in Law 360, which is paywalled. The question is when candidates for federal office can challenge election laws prospectively. For my view, see next post

Thanks for this comment, much appreciated.

"Democracies in the Age of Fragmentation," my essay in NYU's Democracy Project series, was published this week. Link here, brief excerpts to follow. democracyproject.org/posts/democr...

At NYU's Democracy Project (more on that later), Prof. Caleb Nelson has a feature essay arguing that originalism does not support the unitary executive branch theory. Caleb is one of the country's leading originalist scholars, frequently cited by the Court. democracyproject.org/posts/must-a...

Delighted to share my latest, History and Fetishism in the New Separation of Powers Formalism, now live in the Penn Law Review! The piece traces the emergence of the Supreme Court’s new approach to separation of powers law and argues that it is grounded in a set of basic mistakes. (1/3)

Cass Sunstein wrote an essay I found intriguing called "The Morality of Legality." We decided to do a short video discussing the ideas in it. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... @casssunstein.bsky.social www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqlH...

The Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management is going to make it harder to claim that the President can only remove for good cause commissioners of the federal election agencies, the FEC and EAC. I explain in this post: electionlawblog.org?p=150710

As @rickpildes.bsky.social and Bob Bauer discuss here, this issue challenges traditional campaign finance reform advocacy. There's a strong argument that leaving this in place while the rest of the law has been gutted weakens parties to the detriment of democracy. electionlawblog.org?p=150545

Breaking news: the Supreme Court has granted cert on an important case raising issues about the role of political parties in the campaign finance system. Last week, Bob Bauer and I blogged about the issues in this case and their significance: electionlawblog.org?p=150545

The Supreme Court is considering a case on whether current limits on the ability of political parties to coordinate with their candidates violate the First Amendment In this essay, Bob Bauer and I urge the Court to re-consider the role of parties in an age of SuperPacs electionlawblog.org?p=150545

On the Supreme Court's pending decision in the Louisiana redistricting case, LA v. Callais, I have three posts at Election Law Blog, including a new one today: electionlawblog.org?p=150341 electionlawblog.org?p=149861 electionlawblog.org?p=149170

New 30-minute educational cut of Majority Rules, the documentary on ranked choice voting #RCV and how it changed voting and politics in Alaska. I hosted a screening of the longer version at @cato.org last year and it's good.

For #electionlaw folks, I published this analysis of the election-law case the Court granted cert. on yesterday, on standing to bring federal challenges to election laws in advance of an election. electionlawblog.org?p=150169

Over at X, I have a short thread on today's major Supreme Court decision on NEPA: x.com/RickPildes/s...

On the Louisiana race and redistricting case pending before the Supreme Court, I've posted this at Election Law Blog: electionlawblog.org?p=149861

This is one of the best tributes to Justice Souter I've read, in part because it quotes at length from Justice Souter's own account of the processes of judging.

Here's a brief post on Bush v. Gore and the NC Supreme Court election litigation: electionlawblog.org?p=149799

Looking forward to doing this event for Principles First next week:

If there was any traditional understanding of this sort, I've not heard of it. Separation of parties, for the Supreme Court?

Look forward to doing this event for the Agora Institute tomorrow:

On the NC judicial election dispute: I've posted this essay on the due process issues raised by the recent 2-1 NC appellate court decision casting doubt on 60,000+ ballots. electionlawblog.org?p=149341

I found the argument in the Louisiana redistricting case, Louisiana v. Callais, frustrating. The Justices and lawyers only occasionally directly joined issue on the question at the heart of the case.