An election legislation professional weighs in on Trump’s effort to reshape our democracy : NPR

[ad_1]

TONYA MOSLEY, HOST:

That is FRESH AIR. I am Tonya Mosley. The 2026 midterms are a bit over a yr away, however questions on election integrity are already entrance and heart. Simply this week, The New York Instances reported that the Justice Division is quietly working to construct a nationwide voter roll by amassing delicate voter knowledge from states, a transfer consultants warn might be used to revive false claims of widespread fraud and undermine confidence in future elections.

And just lately, President Trump has overtly proposed utilizing government energy to ban each mail-in ballots and digital voting machines. My visitor at this time, legislation scholar Richard Hasen, has warned in a latest op-ed that an order like that might not solely be in opposition to the legislation, it might wield, as he writes, the equipment of presidency to sow doubt, undermine belief and tilt the election taking part in subject.

These warnings echo a broader wave of concern. Earlier this week, Mom Jones additionally revealed a report on what it is calling Venture 2026, a coordinated effort by Trump and his allies to rewrite voting guidelines, redraw congressional maps and stress state and federal officers who're chargeable for overseeing elections. All of it raises a profound query - are our democratic establishments sturdy sufficient to face up to that form of pressure?

Richard Hasen teaches legislation and political science at UCLA, the place he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Venture. He's additionally the creator of quite a few books on election legislation and democracy, together with his most up-to-date "A Actual Proper to Vote: How A Constitutional Modification Can Safeguard American Democracy" Our interview was recorded on Tuesday. Richard Hasen, welcome to FRESH AIR.

RICHARD HASEN: It is so nice to be with you.

MOSLEY: I need to begin with the most recent information. The New York Instances is reporting that the Justice Division is requesting voter info - the Social Safety numbers, driver's license data - from greater than 30 states with a purpose to assess whether or not undocumented immigrants are voting illegally. As a authorized scholar, what's your response to this information?

HASEN: Properly, I feel we have to set the stage a bit bit right here and perceive how elections are run in america. So in most different democracies, there is a nationwide nonpartisan authority that runs elections. They've a nationwide position of voters. In most of these international locations, there is a nationwide id card, which can be utilized to find out citizenship. In america, we've the other. Now we have a hyper-decentralized system. So it isn't even simply on the state degree, though states do preserve statewide voter registration databases as a federal legislation that got here after 2000 that requires that. However most of our elections are run on the county degree.

So you might have completely different machines. You will have completely different types of the poll, all completely different sorts of guidelines for find out how to reconcile issues with the poll. These might differ if you cross a county line. So beginning with the premise that we've a really decentralized system, we do not have a nationwide registry of residents. We do not have a nationwide registry of voters.

MOSLEY: If states refuse handy over that knowledge, what authorized recourse have they got?

HASEN: Properly, so as a result of states are those that primarily are in command of their voting guidelines and voting equipment, it might find yourself in courtroom, the place the Trump administration might attempt to compel the data, after which it must be sorted out within the courts. You are seeing at the least some Republican states cooperating with the Justice Division. We have already seen some disputes. For instance, out right here in Orange County, California, there's been a dispute concerning the native county registrar not turning over all the data. He is redacted info to guard voter privateness that was demanded for some form of investigation that DOJ desires to do, and that's already in courtroom.

So we would see battles in courtroom preventing over this, however there are going to be some states, significantly Republican states, which can be in all probability now going to be keen to show this over, despite the fact that through the first Trump administration, there was quite a lot of resistance even from Republicans. And I ought to level out one of many predominant explanation why we do not have a nationwide documentary proof of citizenship legislation at this time on this nation, it already handed the Home.

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: We do not have it as a result of Mitch McConnell within the Senate and another Republican senators imagine that we must always have this decentralized system. They're frightened that if Trump can create these nationwide guidelines for elections whereas there is a Republican president, Democrats might do one thing else later.

MOSLEY: I need to speak a bit bit extra about lots of the different issues which can be additionally taking place in tandem with this newest information. So past questions on knowledge assortment, there are additionally proposals that change the very approach that Individuals will solid their vote. So President Trump only recently stated that we must always do away with mail-in ballots and voting machines, and he claims that they don't seem to be solely inaccurate. He additionally says that they are costly and dearer than paper ballots. First, can a president really do that? Does a president have the ability to do that? And is there any fact behind these claims about accuracy and expense?

HASEN: Yeah. After he wrote this Fact Social put up about mail-in ballots and voting machines, he then had one other put up extra just lately the place he stated, we'll have nationwide voter ID. So this is the factor. A president's tweet or fact, no matter they name it on Fact Social...

MOSLEY: Proper. Yeah.

HASEN: That is not a royal edict. It isn't as if Trump is a king who can say, you already know, here's what it needs to be, so it shall be written, so it shall be achieved.

MOSLEY: That is true. However lots of the issues that he is written on these social media platforms he is gone on to attempt to enact.

HASEN: Positive. And so he is already tried to do an government order on voting. So he is tried to get a federal company to do extra to require documentary proof of citizenship. He is directed his Division of Justice to probably sue states that do sure issues with their mail-in ballots, and he is threatening and says there's going to be one other government order. This is what the Structure says. In Article 1, Part 4, it says that states can set the way for the conduct of congressional elections, topic to Congress' override. The president has no position in any of this. The president's position is to faithfully execute the legal guidelines. That is what's in Article 2 of the Structure, which speaks to the president's powers.

MOSLEY: Is there any fact, although, to his claims that these voting machines are inaccurate and that mail-in ballots are costly? I imply, you talked about these adjustments in 2000 with the addition of the voting machines. These machines are very outdated. They're now 25 years outdated. Is there any legitimacy to his claims?

HASEN: Properly, let's first discuss mail-in balloting. Is there fraud with mail and ballots? There's little or no election fraud in america, and the best way we all know is that any even trace that there is a fraud drawback is investigated. And it seems, I might say, because the Sixties, particularly because the Nineteen Eighties, we have had very clear elections in america, only a few situations of fraud. When it does occur, it is usually election officers who're committing fraud, not voters, so voter fraud's a nasty title. However it's true that there are generally manipulation of mail-in ballots, however it's nonetheless fairly uncommon, often occurs in a small native election, the place persons are not paying very a lot consideration. We all know that - if you happen to suppose to the 2020 election, that was the election throughout COVID.

MOSLEY: Proper.

HASEN: That is when many thousands and thousands of extra individuals moved to mail-in ballots as a result of they did not need to present up on the polling place as a result of they did not need to get sick. Onerous to get ballot employees. So we did quite a lot of voting by mail. Trump claimed in tons of of tweets that there was fraud within the elections.

MOSLEY: Fraud. Yep.

HASEN: It was completely investigated. There have been over 60 lawsuits. No proof of any vital fraud anyplace within the nation. And it was so investigated by journalists, by election officers, in courtroom circumstances. And so there is a small drawback with fraud on this nation.

MOSLEY: But it surely's not vital sufficient.

HASEN: To swing a presidential election would require an enormous quantity of fraud that might be very onerous to cover and can be very - so if you happen to intercepted tons of of individuals's ballots, effectively, these individuals would complain. They might go to vote, and they'd say, sorry, you already voted. As a result of states have information. They will look - oh, you already voted. You'll be able to't vote once more. Properly, I did not vote. You realize? We'd - that is how we discover out. When there are these uncommon situations of fraud, there are safeguards in place.

MOSLEY: Can we speak a bit bit concerning the position of state leaders - governors, secretaries of state, attorneys basic - and the position that they play in elections? You have famous that even well-meaning election officers like secretaries of state, as an illustration, might tilt in direction of a celebration. I am occupied with this within the bigger scope of President Trump focusing on democratic states, as an illustration. Are you able to say extra about that?

HASEN: So not solely do we've a decentralized system of elections the place issues are on the state after which the county degree, we additionally haven't got a nonpartisan system of elections in a lot of this nation. So we generally have election officers, just like the secretary of state, who is likely to be elected as a Democrat or a Republican. Typically we've county boards that decide the outcomes, you already know, certify. This is what the vote depend is. Typically, these are partisan boards...

MOSLEY: Yeah.

HASEN: ...Which can be Democratic or Republican. For probably the most half, I feel most people who find themselves concerned in elections on this nation have an allegiance to make it possible for this depend is correct, that we'll have a free and truthful election. However after all, in case you are a Secretary of State, and you are a Democrat otherwise you're a Republican, you would possibly, in a detailed case, be swayed, even subconsciously, by what can be within the curiosity of your social gathering.

MOSLEY: I feel it is actually attention-grabbing that you simply had been pushing a number of years in the past for kind of a nationwide system, however now you suppose that our system might be the very best for it to be decentralized. Are you able to simply restate, like, what has modified your thoughts?

HASEN: So the rationale that I now not desire a nationwide nonpartisan system of election administration in america is as a result of our democracy is so weak and since the Supreme Court docket specifically has given the president a lot energy by issues just like the rulings on the immunity that the president has, the unitary government idea that appears to be giving the president the ability to fireplace or intrude with impartial businesses, that it is an excessive amount of energy within the fingers of an individual who may not have American democracy at coronary heart.

A lot of our system, a lot of the restraint that we have seen from prior presidents, it seems was not legally compelled, despite the fact that many people thought that that is what the Structure and the legal guidelines require, however that it was a matter of norms. And Trump's keen to bust these norms. And even when Trump is gone, there could also be one other one that comes alongside as president who's going to attempt to abuse this energy once more. And as long as our nation has this vulnerability, decentralizing energy can function a option to attempt to reduce the affect of an authoritarian-leaning president in opposition to an election system.

MOSLEY: So Mom Jones just lately revealed this text by investigative journalist Ari Berman, and it raises this state of affairs that President Trump will use unrest as a pretext to declare martial legislation and even droop the 2026 midterms. From a constitutional and authorized perspective, does a president even have the ability to delay or cancel an election?

HASEN: The President has no energy to do something associated to elections, a lot much less cancel them, reschedule them. What the president can do is do issues that might disrupt the election. So this is what I am frightened about - not essentially declaring martial legislation - what if the president sends the Nationwide Guard into Black cities, proper? Milwaukee.

MOSLEY: Which we're already seeing.

HASEN: Proper, however on the time of elections - Milwaukee, Philadelphia - claiming some nationwide emergency. There was only a latest assertion made by Cleta Mitchell, who's an ally of Trump in all of his voter fraud claims. And she or he stated he might declare some form of nationwide emergency and do one thing to attempt to nationalize the elections. The president has no energy to do that, however that does not imply he will not attempt as a result of, you already know, I feel he is achieved quite a lot of issues already that he would not have the ability to do.

And so, you already know, what's it going to imply to have to face as much as the federal government to make it possible for individuals have their proper to vote? I imply, we had this very generally in southern states earlier than the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However the concept that you would need to struggle in opposition to authorities resistance that's making an attempt to disenfranchise individuals, I feel individuals would take to the streets as a result of that is mostly a direct assault on democracy if you happen to intrude with individuals's capability to vote.

However I feel it is not possible that the president would say the elections are canceled. However there's a lot of issues he might do along with his energy with the navy, along with his energy over federal authorities equipment that may make it very troublesome for some individuals to vote. And he is acquired an incentive to do that, which is that if Democrats take again management of Congress, they are going to make the remaining years of his time period rather more troublesome. And so the stakes are very excessive, a lot greater than we usually consider a midterm election...

MOSLEY: Yeah.

HASEN: ...Being.

MOSLEY: Let's take a brief break. If you happen to're simply becoming a member of us, we're speaking about the way forward for free and truthful elections below a second Trump administration. My visitor is Richard Hasen, a professor of legislation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Venture. We'll proceed our dialog after a brief break. That is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF JOAN JEANRENAUD'S "DERVISH")

MOSLEY: That is FRESH AIR, and at this time I am talking with UCLA legislation professor Richard Hasen concerning the mounting threats to American democracy as we head into the 2026 midterms. Hasen is the creator of quite a few books on election legislation and democracy, and he just lately wrote about President Trump's proposal to ban mail-in ballots and voting machines. Our interview was recorded yesterday.

I need to put all of this in context simply to know the place we're in historical past. Has there ever been a critical try in U.S. historical past to delay a federal election?

HASEN: Even through the Civil Warfare, we held elections.

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: So the concept that you - and there - you already know, there was discuss this throughout COVID. You realize, I keep in mind getting quite a lot of questions from journalists about delaying elections. I imply, that is a really harmful factor. Trump just lately had a - some form of Oval Workplace assembly that was open to the press with Zelenskyy. And over in Ukraine, the struggle is raging and they also've needed to postpone their elections, and Trump began speaking about that. You realize, he is a bit interested by that, identical to he is a bit interested by, perhaps I might run for a 3rd time period. You realize, persons are saying I might. I in all probability will not, however perhaps I'll. You realize?

So I have been researching a brand new guide, and I went again and I used to be trying within the Seventies at Republican poll safety measures, which was methods to attempt to, you already know, I feel, suppress the vote of people that had been prone to vote for Democrats, significantly in minority communities. And one of many issues it stated on this handbook that I used to be from 1976 is that simply the publicity of claiming you are going to do that stuff can deter individuals from voting and may be demobilizing. I imply, this was a promoting level of this, is it might discourage individuals who would possibly in any other case be on the fence about whether or not it is definitely worth the trouble of voting.

MOSLEY: That is your concern proper now?

HASEN: Sure.

MOSLEY: This dialogue that we're having proper now, the statements that the president is making on this very second - that's impacting individuals's concepts and ideas about their capability to vote and the integrity of their vote.

HASEN: Properly, take into consideration this, proper? All of us must vote to ensure that democracy to work, and but there is a price to voting. You need to work out the place your polling place is. You need to ensure you're registered to vote. Being registered to vote is the largest obstacle for people who find themselves nonvoters as a result of they by no means registered, in order that they by no means vote. If you happen to're informed that, oh, effectively, there is likely to be ICE on the polls, otherwise you're informed that, you already know, there's going to be a giant trouble...

MOSLEY: Yeah.

HASEN: ...It might be demobilizing. Now, it could possibly minimize each methods. One of many issues that is taking place that I feel is underappreciated by the media is that as a result of there's a shift within the composition of the Republican Social gathering in direction of voters who're decrease earnings and fewer educated, each whites and minority voters. Decrease earnings, much less educated - these are the people who find themselves most affected by legal guidelines that make it more durable to register and vote. And so this, in some methods, could also be self-defeating. It will - it is - I feel it is typically demobilizing for individuals when there's all this preventing over elections and when there's these threats. However I feel the intent, at the least a part of Trump's intent, is to discourage individuals from voting. And likewise, if Democrats really win, it is a approach of making an attempt to delegitimize Democratic victories and declare that they are one way or the other illegitimate.

MOSLEY: Can we speak a bit bit about tampering? So we all know as a result of we have seen it. The U.S. intelligence company warns that Russian affect operations, together with disinformation and on-line ways aimed toward sowing mistrust, intensify earlier than, throughout and after elections. In order expertise turns into extra refined, how vital are international threats to our voting system?

HASEN: So I feel it is crucial right here to differentiate between the data surroundings, the place I feel there are - a lot of disinformation goes to be on the market.

MOSLEY: Proper.

HASEN: It has been that approach.

MOSLEY: Misinformation and disinformation, yeah, on-line and all the things. Sure.

HASEN: In order that, I feel, goes to occur. And I feel we'll see extra of it, partially as a result of Trump has dismantled a number of the safety, cybersecurity and different intelligence that was used to cease a few of this and to publicize the, you already know, not simply Russians, however Chinese language and Iranian and different international locations which can be making an attempt to affect elections. That is one factor. However the phrase tampering sounds such as you're speaking about tampering with voting machines. Our voting machines are fairly safe. And again in 2016, there was an incident the place the Russian authorities appeared to probe a state's voter registration database and did not do something. And the aim appeared to be simply to solid doubt on the integrity of the system. We'd see that once more.

It will be very onerous for an additional nation to mess with our registration system and for individuals to not discover. Once more, you thought you registered to vote, you go and you are not registered? You'd understand it. You'd complain. Like, we'd discover out about that. And the best way our voting machines, those that tabulate votes - these will not be the sorts of issues which can be simply manipulated by international entities. They - you already know, they don't seem to be related to a single laptop mind the place, you already know, anyone might hack in and, you already know, make the vote totals change or one thing like that.

And if - even when the machines had been hacked - and I am not an professional on laptop science, however I've talked to laptop scientists about this. One of the best ways to take care of the potential for somebody, and might be somebody home - it would not must be a international interference - somebody domestically making an attempt to mess with the best way the voting machines depend the ballots, is that we do these partial hand counts to make it possible for issues line up. And if they do not, then we examine. And, you already know, sometimes, there are issues. They virtually all the time grow to be some form of human error or some form of glitch, not anyone deliberately messing with these machines. So I feel it is more likely that we'll see affect campaigns to attempt to affect how Individuals vote.

MOSLEY: Our visitor at this time is Richard Hasen, an election legislation scholar who has been writing concerning the dangers going through American democracy as we head into the 2026 midterms. We'll be proper again after a brief break. I am Tonya Mosley, and that is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF FRANK ZAPPA'S "EAT THAT QUESTION")

MOSLEY: That is FRESH AIR. I am Tonya Mosley. And I am speaking with Richard Hasen, the Gary T. Schwartz endowed chair in legislation and professor of political science at UCLA, the place he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Venture. His guide, "A Actual Proper To Vote: How A Constitutional Modification Can Safeguard American Democracy," was revealed final yr. Hasen is the creator of a number of books about elections and democracy. He is at the moment engaged on a guide tracing the arc of American democracy from 1964 to 2024. This interview was recorded yesterday.

Professor Hasen, I need to discuss redistricting - what simply occurred in Texas, what's being proposed in - up earlier than voters in California, developments in different states. However earlier than we get to these examples, I feel I need to undergo a bit little bit of, like, strolling via how congressional and state legislative redistricting often works in america. So what units the method in movement, and what requirements must be adopted?

HASEN: Each 10 years, the Structure says we've to depend all of the individuals. That is referred to as a census. After we do this, each state will get a sure variety of members of Congress. There's 435 members of Congress. Each state will get at the least one.

MOSLEY: Yeah.

HASEN: However past that, whether or not California will get 50 or 40 or 70 is determined by relative inhabitants. And so it adjustments...

MOSLEY: Yeah.

HASEN: ...As a result of individuals transfer out of California. They transfer into Texas. Texas will get one other congressional seat. And this occurs each 10 years. So then anyone in every state - and state legislation determines who that is - has to attract up plenty of districts with the identical variety of individuals in them. Supreme Court docket has stated you have to have the identical variety of individuals in every congressional district. And, after all, that is an approximation as a result of we do not know precisely how many individuals are there. Now, in California, California voters handed an initiative that principally says there's going to be a fee made up of Democrats, Republicans and independents. And it is very difficult about how they do it, however they draw the district traces. In lots of different states, it isn't an impartial fee that attracts the traces. It is the state legislature that attracts the traces. And when state legislatures draw the traces, they have an inclination to attract the traces to favor their very own social gathering. So the way you draw the traces determines how a lot relative energy Democrats and Republicans have.

MOSLEY: And we simply noticed this in Texas. So Republicans there redrew their congressional map mid-decade, so it wasn't after the census. This isn't in opposition to the legislation, however, I imply, are there authorized checks to cease legislatures from redrawing maps purely for partisan achieve?

HASEN: So first, there are state constraints. So, for instance, most states say you must draw districts in order that they're multi functional piece. You'll be able to't draw, like, little islands and join them. Some states say they must be compact. You'll be able to't draw weird-shaped districts. However then there are additionally federal guidelines. I've talked about one already - equal inhabitants. There's one other rule that is in Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that claims that minority voters must have the identical alternative as different voters to take part within the political course of to elect representatives of their selection. The Voting Rights Act, Part 2, has been extra accountable than anything for the election of candidates supported by Black, Latino, Native American and Asian Individuals which can be in giant populations. And this isn't only for Congress, but additionally for state and native legislatures. So they have to adjust to Part 2.

Additionally, they cannot make race probably the most predominant factor they do once they draw their traces. And that creates some rigidity with Part 2 'trigger they must take race under consideration, however they cannot take race under consideration an excessive amount of. And the Supreme Court docket is at the moment contemplating find out how to take care of that. However what they're allowed to do, because of a Supreme Court docket determination in 2019 referred to as Rucho v. Widespread Trigger, is they will draw nevertheless they need their traces to favor their political social gathering. So in Rucho, the Supreme Court docket stated that partisan gerrymandering claims can't be heard in federal courtroom as a result of the courtroom doesn't have a typical to know when taking social gathering under consideration goes too far.

MOSLEY: Are you able to clarify Proposition 50 in California, which works to voters very quickly? How would it not change the system?

HASEN: So California, due to a few voter initiatives, chooses its congressional districts via an impartial fee. What Proposition 50 would do is it might say just for congressional elections and just for the following three congressional elections - '26, '28 and 2030 - earlier than the following census, California is just not going to make use of the commission-drawn traces for Congress. It is as an alternative going to make use of traces which have been handed by the state legislature. And these traces would create as much as 5 further Democratic seats, which might considerably negate what was happening in Texas...

MOSLEY: Texas. Proper.

HASEN: ...With the Texas gerrymandering.

MOSLEY: Can we speak concerning the integrity of the Voting Rights Act? I do know one authorized scholar stated the legislation's protections have skilled loss of life by a thousand cuts over the previous few many years. How would you characterize it at this second?

HASEN: Properly, the Supreme Court docket killed off one key a part of the Voting Rights Act again in 2013 within the Shelby County case, the place they stated that the rule that stated that states with a historical past of racial discrimination in voting needed to get federal approval earlier than they might change their voting guidelines to indicate that they would not make minority voters worse off. So Part 5 is basically gone in america. What was left was Part 2. That is the half that claims that minority voters ought to have a good likelihood of getting their share of political energy on this nation. The Supreme Court docket has been whittling away and whittling away at Part 2 for the previous few many years. And now, in a case out of Louisiana, it's attainable that the Supreme Court docket goes to declare Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. And I might say if that occurs, lots of the most outstanding members of Congress who symbolize minority communities might be gerrymandered out of their seats as a result of there would now not be a Part 2 constraint on how district traces are drawn.

MOSLEY: If the Supreme Court docket guidelines to principally intestine Part 2, the place does that go away the Voting Rights Act?

HASEN: Properly, there are nonetheless elements of the Voting Rights Act that might nonetheless be in impact - for instance, the elements that require bilingual ballots for individuals. There's part of the Voting Rights Act that bans literacy assessments nationwide. These two might be attacked, however gutting Part 2 would not straight have an effect on these. However the two huge elements of the Voting Rights Act traditionally had been Part 5 and Part 2. And I feel that if we ended up with the Supreme Court docket holding now that Part 2 is unconstitutional, that it might probably spur a brand new civil rights motion on this nation as a result of it might primarily change what has been understood to be the legislation for many years.

There's additionally one other assault on the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court docket might effectively hear, which might cease non-public plaintiffs just like the NAACP Authorized Protection Fund from having the ability to sue to implement the Voting Rights Act, leaving it solely to the Division of Justice. And we all know traditionally, over 90% of Voting Rights Act circumstances have been introduced by non-public teams, not by the Division of Justice.

MOSLEY: Primarily based on the make-up of the Supreme Court docket at the moment and their choices, what's the probability of those choices being made?

HASEN: So the Louisiana case, which is at the moment earlier than the courtroom - it is referred to as Louisiana v. Callais. So Louisiana had to attract its congressional districts. And voting rights plaintiffs introduced a lawsuit and stated, you must draw a second congressional district the place Blacks have a possibility to elect their candidate of selection. And so Louisiana did that, however they drew it in such a approach that was oddly formed to in any other case shield their Republican incumbents. So then there was a follow-on lawsuit claiming, if you drew these districts now to adjust to the Voting Rights Act, you made race crucial factor, and that is unconstitutional below the Equal Safety Clause.

And so when Louisiana versus Callais was argued again in March, the query earlier than the courtroom was, was race crucial factor, or was this all about partisanship? However on the finish of the Supreme Court docket's time period in June, fairly than determine the case, the courtroom stated, we'll rehear this case subsequent yr. And we've extra issues we need to hear about, however we'll let you know about them later. Very uncommon for the Supreme Court docket. So now, October 15, the Supreme Court docket's going to listen to argument on this case once more, and it is an enormous, big query.

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: You do not tee up such a query until there are at the least some justices excited about doing this. So there are a variety of potentialities. One is the Supreme Court docket punts the difficulty 'trigger they've a lot of methods to not determine it, and perhaps they simply sign, Voting Rights Act finish is coming quickly. Or they might strike down the Voting Rights Act proper earlier than a midterm election, throwing the midterm elections probably into chaos, as there's extra redistricting probably being achieved. Or - and that is what I feel is probably - they rewrite how Part 2 is known. They do not strike it down, however they so weaken it that it turns into probably ineffective over time. That is form of what I name the John Roberts Particular. Chief Justice Roberts likes to do issues that appear like they're minimal, however in actual fact, they've big repercussions.

MOSLEY: I assume it feels prefer it comes out of the blue for me that we'd see the loss of life and decimation of the Voting Rights Act. However maybe it had all the time been clear that we had been headed on this route?

HASEN: Let me take you again to 1982. That is when Congress handed at this time's model of Part 2, that basically expanded minority voting rights.

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: The purpose individual within the Reagan administration who was preventing in opposition to the enlargement of the Voting Rights Act was named John Roberts. Justice Alito, when he utilized to work within the Justice Division within the Nineteen Eighties - we all know this from papers that had been launched in connection along with his affirmation - he wrote about how he did not just like the one-person, one-vote circumstances, the circumstances that require equal inhabitants in a district. So this has been an curiosity of a number of the conservative justices on the courtroom for a while.

MOSLEY: A while.

HASEN: And the large shock was really in 2022, when Roberts joined the liberals and Justice Kavanaugh...

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: ...In upholding Alabama's district. And I feel a part of that was as a result of Alabama was so blatantly making an attempt to go in opposition to precedent with out really saying that that is what they had been doing. However Justice Kavanaugh, in that 2022 case referred to as Allen versus Milligan - he wrote a separate opinion, a concurrence, the place he stated, you already know, perhaps time's up, and let's hear some briefing on that. And naturally, there have been the opposite conservatives on the courtroom - Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch and Thomas...

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: ...Who're able to say now that the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or must be watered down. So that they know find out how to weaken, make toothless the Voting Rights Act with out really putting it down, if that is what they need to do.

MOSLEY: If you happen to're simply becoming a member of us, we're speaking with Richard Hasen, a professor of legislation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Venture. We'll be proper again after a brief break. That is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF WOOKIE SONG, "SCRAPPY")

MOSLEY: That is FRESH AIR. At this time, we're speaking to Richard Hasen concerning the pressures on American democracy, from voting restrictions and gerrymandering to the potential misuse of federal energy within the upcoming elections. Our interview was recorded yesterday.

Professor Hasen, I need to discuss third-term speak. So we all know the twenty second Modification flatly bans anybody from being elected president greater than twice, however President Trump has sometimes hinted that there is likely to be ways in which he can work round that. How fail-safe is that two-term restrict?

HASEN: So I feel the Structure's twenty second Modification is evident - not more than two phrases. That needs to be the tip of it. Nevertheless, earlier than this Supreme Court docket, are there arguments that might be made to attempt to get round that? We have already heard individuals making an attempt to make these arguments. How might it occur? For instance, the following ticket is Vance-Trump fairly than Trump-Vance.

MOSLEY: Sure, he is already floated that. After which he would take over in some unspecified time in the future inside...

HASEN: Proper. Properly, Vance would then resign.

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: I imply, I consider this as very far-fetched. Additionally, take into consideration the president's age. Additionally, take into consideration the truth that Barack Obama might then be working in opposition to Donald Trump...

MOSLEY: Proper...

HASEN: ...Or working in opposition to Vance.

MOSLEY: ...As a result of what goes for Republicans would additionally go for Democrats and others.

HASEN: Until it is a Republican-only rule, sure, I feel that might be proper. You realize, it is - oh, it is solely a rule that applies to 2 consecutive-term presidents and to not one the place there's an interruption. I imply, we will discuss this. I feel the principle function of this speak is twofold. No. 1, it drives liberals loopy as a result of they're already frightened - rightly so - about Trump's authoritarian tendencies and the way he is interfering with elections, and this could simply be extra of that. So it is meant to placed on the desk issues that appear like they're off the desk. However the different factor it does is it makes Trump much less of a lame duck, proper? This - he is a second-term president. He is outdated. He is additionally unpopular now. It is actually unlikely he'd be elected. However, you already know - and with him speaking about that, effectively, then the information is just not stuffed with hypothesis. Will it's Vance? Will it's Rubio? Who'll be the Republican nominee subsequent time? And so it is a approach for him to not cede his energy.

MOSLEY: How a lot harm does it do to democracy when each election is framed nearly as good and evil, with one facet portrayed as dishonest? Are you able to discuss that bigger affect?

HASEN: So I feel that this is likely one of the best risks for American democracy, is that when elections are existential, persons are keen to do extra excessive issues. I imply, suppose again to the entire individuals in 2020, Republicans who imagine the false claims that that election was stolen. Properly, if you happen to actually imagine the election was stolen, you would possibly take determined measures to ensure, whether or not that is violence or manipulating voting outcomes, since you're making an attempt to cease the dishonest, proper? Keep in mind the expression, the Roger Stone expression, cease the steal?

MOSLEY: Sure.

HASEN: I imply, we might name it Orwellian, however, you already know, that is past Orwellian. It's a propaganda marketing campaign meant to weaponize one social gathering's base in opposition to democracy by claiming that their democracy has been taken from them. And, in actual fact, if you happen to checked out polling across the 2020 election, it was Republicans greater than Democrats who thought that democracy was in peril as a result of that they had been fed lies by Trump and others. And so I feel it's corrosive of our democracy, and it may take quite a lot of rebuilding of belief and quite a lot of safeguards in our system, like these audits of ballots and transparency of processes and safety for voters, with a purpose to get us again to the place we had been earlier than the Trump period began in 2016.

MOSLEY: Why would not the Structure shield our proper to vote?

HASEN: Properly, again on the time of the Structure, when it was drafted within the 1780s, there was no common voting. There was white males with property who had been allowed to vote, and there was no settlement on who might vote, and so it was left to every state. After which ultimately, we had direct election of senators. However even then within the seventeenth Modification, states nonetheless determine who's certified to vote. And for president, you could keep in mind the Bush v. Gore case that ended the disputed 2000 election.

MOSLEY: The hanging chads, yeah.

HASEN: Proper. So the Supreme Court docket stated in that case that the individuals haven't got the proper to vote for president. They solely get that proper as a result of states have given it to them, and states might take it again at any time. So a state legislature might cross a legislation that claims, you already know what? We're not going to allow you to vote for president anymore on this state. We will determine who will get the Electoral School votes ourselves. So our proper to vote within the Structure could be very precarious, and far of that proper relies on Supreme Court docket circumstances that the courtroom determined within the Sixties within the so-called Warren Court docket period, circumstances that in some unspecified time in the future this Conservative Supreme Court docket would possibly select to reexamine. So we actually want - if we need to have a twenty first century democracy, we'd like a twenty first century proper to vote in our Structure.

MOSLEY: I used to be actually struck by you saying that you simply imagine we're coming into one other period of the Civil Rights Motion. There are different civil liberties which can be additionally at stake. What's going to that appear like?

HASEN: Properly, I feel it might look one thing just like the Sixties. I feel it might be huge public protests. It will imply that there can be the election of people that need change. You realize, the final time the Structure was amended - the final proposed Constitutional modification was in 1971, when there could not be discrimination in opposition to 18 yr olds. You realize, all through American historical past, we have amended the Structure, proper? Twenty-seven instances we have amended the Structure. It is time for a twenty eighth Modification. It is time to revitalize American democracy.

The rationale that different international locations have better voting rights protections of their constitutions is as a result of their constitutions are newer. They're youthful. Our Structure was written at a time after we had slaves. It was written at a time when the thought that girls might vote was not taken severely. In truth, in 1875, the Supreme Court docket stated, no, the Structure would not shield ladies's proper to vote, and it took 40 years of organizing with a purpose to get the nineteenth Modification handed. By the point we get to 1920 and the passage of the nineteenth Modification, which bars discrimination on voting on the premise of intercourse, over 30 states had amended their state constitutions to permit ladies to vote. And so I take into consideration that, that it may take a long-term widespread motion if we'll revitalize this democracy.

MOSLEY: Do you place confidence in our lawmakers?

HASEN: I place confidence in the American individuals that there is sufficient of a dedication to democracy that if our leaders will not step up and really shield democracy, that the persons are going to demand it and demand new leaders if we do not get the management we'd like on free and truthful elections and safety of our voting rights.

MOSLEY: Professor Rick Hasen, thanks a lot for this dialog.

HASEN: It has been nice to speak to you.

MOSLEY: Richard Hasen is a professor of legislation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Venture. That is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF ANTHONY BRAXTON'S "MAPLE LEAF RAG (WITH MUHAL RICHARD ABRAMS)")

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts might differ. Transcript textual content could also be revised to right errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org could also be edited after its authentic broadcast or publication. The authoritative file of NPR’s programming is the audio file.