Law & Democracy

In this episode of Law & Democracy, hosts Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, and Anne Ralph sit down with leading election law expert Professor Josh Douglas. Recorded just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court released its 92-page opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, the panel breaks down the immediate fallout of the breaking news. Prof. Douglas explains how the ruling makes it incredibly difficult for plaintiffs to bring Section 2 claims under the Voting Rights Act by creating an impossibly high evidentiary burden for racial vote dilution lawsuits. The discussion highlights how the Court is now effectively condoning partisan gerrymandering, allowing states to cut off lawsuits by using partisan goals as a defense against racial gerrymandering claims. Finally, Prof. Douglas touches on his experiences as a visiting scholar in Brazil and shares why, despite a challenging legal landscape, he still considers himself a “Democracy Optimist”. Guests & Hosts: Guest: Prof. Josh Douglas, J. David Rosenberg Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Hosts: Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, & Anne Ralph from the Election Law Program at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. If you enjoyed this discussion, please don’t forget to like and subscribe to Law & Democracy!

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is currently before Congress. While the House has passed the bill, its future in the Senate remains uncertain due to filibuster rules. What are the legal and practical implications of requiring documentary proof of citizenship for #voter registration? From the potential impact on married women and college students to the increased burdens on volunteer election workers, we explore whether this act solves a real problem or creates a new “nightmare” for #election officials. Hosts: • Terri Enns, James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State • Anthony Gaughan, Professor of Law and Kern Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. • Steve Huefner, C. William O’Neill Professor in Law and Judicial Administration; Director, Legislation Clinic; Deputy Director, Election Law at Ohio State; Director, D.C. Summer Program. • Anne Ralph, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Strategic Initiatives; Morgan E. Shipman Professor in Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. What are your thoughts on the #SAVE Act? Leave a comment below to join the conversation!If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.

We the Voters: Lori Ringhand on the Constitutional Choices We MakeOur system is defined by the choices and compromises made throughout our history, from the halls of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to the modern day struggle for voting rights. Why do we have a Senate? Why is the Electoral College so “weird”? And why are the simple “nuts and bolts” of election administration often the most misunderstood? In this episode, we are thrilled to welcome back our first-ever repeat guest: Lori Ringhand, the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia. She joins the hosts of Law & Democracy to discuss her new book, We the Voters: The Constitutional Choices That Shape America’s Elections. Professor Ringhand takes us on a journey through the evolution of American democracy. We explore how the Declaration of Independence set the stage for representative government, how the Reconstruction amendments expanded the electorate, and how historical tensions between federal and state power continue to fuel contemporary election disputes. Whether you’re an election law expert or a curious voter, this conversation offers a clear, non-partisan look at the rules that define our democracy and the consequences of the choices we’ve made. Learn more about “We the Voters”: https://www.sup.org/books/law/we-voters Guest: • Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. She is a nationally known Supreme Court scholar and the author of We the Voters: The Constitutional Choices That Shape America’s Elections. Hosts: • Anthony Gaughan, Professor of Law and Kern Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. • Steve Huefner, C. William O’Neill Professor in Law and Judicial Administration; Director, Legislation Clinic; Deputy Director, Election Law at Ohio State; Director, D.C. Summer Program.• Anne Ralph, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Strategic Initiatives; Morgan E. Shipman Professor in Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State.If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, March 18, 2026.

Join the Law & Democracy podcast for an in-depth look at the realities of litigating election law cases. Our guest, Sharon Brett (University of Kansas School of Law), brings years of experience from her time as Legal Director of the ACLU of Kansas to discuss the complex intersection of law, politics, and the rights of voters. In a wide-ranging conversation with hosts Tony Gaughan, Terri Enns, and Matt Cooper, Sharon breaks down the strategic decisions involved in high-profile civil rights litigation. She provides a detailed “from the trenches” account of the 2022 Kansas redistricting case, exploring the partisan and racial dynamics of the “Ad Astra 2” map and the subsequent 5-4 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court. Key topics include: The strategic move toward state constitutional law in the wake of federal restrictions on partisan gerrymandering claims. The factual landscape of the Wyandotte County split and its impact on Black and Latino voting power. A critique of “lockstepping”—the tendency of state courts to mirror federal interpretations rather than exploring independent state constitutional grounds. Lessons learned from first-chairing complex trials and arguing major appeals on the frontlines of democracy. If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, February 26, 2026.

What if a chief election official wrongfully denies the franchise to thousands of felons when the law very clearly entitles them to vote? Or even blatantly ignores new legislation expanding voting rights simply because they disagree with the law? In his NYU Law Review article, “Unilateral Election Administration,” Professor John Martin of Quinnipiac University School of Law explores the oversight measures to hold chief election officials accountable. Martin notes that these officials wield immense power, enjoying unilateral authority to render decisions affecting voter registration, voting equipment, ballot access, election certification, and official training. But what happens when that power is misused or abused? Law & Democracy co-hosts sit down with Martin to discuss this critical article during a time when the election law arena is increasingly volatile. The conversation paints a comprehensive picture, from explaining the role of a chief election official to assessing the different modes of accountability available to check their power. Recorded on Wednesday, February 4, 2026. #electionlaw #power #democracy

Does the Voting Rights Act have a constitutional expiration date? Columbia Law Professor Kerrel Murray joins the Law & Democracy team to challenge the growing legal theory that Section 2 is a temporary “disparate impact” measure that must eventually end. Join hosts Tony Gaughan, Steve Huefner, and Terri Enns as they discuss with Murray the distinctions between Section 2 and traditional disparate impact claims, the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on race, and what the future holds for voting rights litigation. Recorded on January 12, 2026.

Election law scholarship often operates under key assumptions: that the Supreme Court functions as an “almighty overseer” determining the scope of power for the other branches, and that the states possess “broad authority over elections” that Congress generally should not disturb. In fact, the historical record reveals that Congress possesses “much more power than many people have thought” when it comes to voting and elections. However, many of these powers have “lain dormant for100 plus years,” causing Congress to lose its “muscle memory” for action in this critical space. Leading election law scholar and Dean of the USC Gould School of Law, Franita Tolson, presents a comprehensive historical reappraisal in her forthcoming book, In Congress We Trust? Enforcing Voting Rights from the Founding to the Jim Crow Era. The book attempts to determine if the prevailing assumptions regarding congressional limitations are true. Dean Tolson reveals “a lot of gems that we just don’t talk about” by examining overlooked constitutional provisions, including the Guarantee Clause, Article I, Section 5, and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Dean Tolson joins Law & Democracy to discuss the imperative of recovering this history, asking whether “we should be talking about Congress the same way we talk about the Supreme Court when it comes to the regulations of voting and elections”. This episode explores how understanding Congress’s forgotten power and historical use of “muscle” is crucial for addressing contemporary challenges to American democracy, which Dean Tolson argues is far more fragile than many assume. Speakers: • Franita Tolson, Dean and Carl Mason Franklin Chair in Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.• Edward Foley, Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law; Director, Election Law at Ohio State. • Anthony Gaughan, Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State; Professor of Law and Current Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School. • Terri Enns, James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Thoughts? Email us at [email protected]. Recorded on December 9, 2025.

Widely regarded as the most transformative piece of legislation of the Civil Rights era, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a comprehensive measure enacted to dismantle Jim Crow policies and eliminate discriminatory voting practices nationwide. Since its passage, however, the VRA has faced continuous turbulence. For example, the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee significantly curtailed the use of Section 2, the provision that allows voters to challenge laws and procedures that deny equal political opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Election law expert, Maureen Edobor, delivers an urgent assessment of the VRA’s current state in 2025 and explains the deep implications of the pivotal Supreme Court case, Louisiana v. Callais. This case directly challenges a new congressional map designed to remedy vote dilution for Black voters, forcing the Court to confront the fundamental constitutionality of VRA Section 2. Speakers: • Maureen Edobor, a Theodore DeLaney Center Fellow focusing on Southern race relations, politics, and culture, at the Washington and Lee University School of Law • Anthony Gaughan, Associate Dean; Kern Family Chair in Law and Professor of Law at Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State • Terri Enns, James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State • Anne Ralph, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Strategic Initiatives; Morgan E. Shipman Professor in Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Thoughts? Email us at [email protected]. Watch our show on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@OhioStateLaw Recorded on November 11, 2025.

Brad Smith, former Chair of the Federal Election Commission and President of the Institute for Free Speech, joins the Election Law Program at The Ohio State University to discuss the pending Supreme Court case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. Smith outlines the arguments presented in the amicus brief he co-authored, which challenges the constitutionality of limits on coordinated party expenditures and questions the legal foundation of Buckley v. Valeo. The conversation covers: • The legal issues at stake in NRSC v. FEC • The role of political parties in campaign finance • The definition and evidence of corruption under current law • The impact of digital media on campaign practices • Constitutional limits on Congress’s authority to regulate campaigns

In this episode, we welcome Jacob Eisler, the James Edmund and Margaret Elizabeth Hennessey Corry Professor at the Florida State University College of Law, where the 2025 Election Law Conference (ELC) was hosted. Professor Eisler shares highlights from the conference, which brought together leading scholars from across the nation to discuss the practice and theory of election law, with a focus on the most urgent issues currently facing American democracy—representation, democracy and economic inequality, fair districting, and challenges to electoral integrity. The keynote address was delivered by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, the Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. The 2025 ELC at Florida State built upon the 2024 Election Law Conference at Washington University School of Law, continuing the tradition as a leading annual conference on constitutional law, democratic theory, and the electoral process in the American legal academy. Publications referenced in this episode: 1. The Stagnation, Retrogression, and Potential Pro-Voter Transformation of U.S. Election Law by Richard L. Hasen 2. The Ohio State Law Journal 2025 Symposium 3. The Two Faces of Representation by Ashraf Ahmed 4. The Law of Freedom: The Supreme Court and Democracy by Jacob Eisler About Professor Jacob Eisler Jacob Eisler joined Florida State University College of Law in 2023 as the James Edmund and Margaret Elizabeth Hennessey Corry Professor. Professor Eisler researches constitutional law, election law, criminal law (with a focus on anti-corruption law), legal theory, and law and technology. He applies moral and political theory to questions of judicial reasoning and institutional design, with particular emphasis on the relationship between legal doctrine, democratic self-rule, and the conditions necessary for political liberty. He is the author of The Law of Freedom: The Supreme Court and Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2023), and his scholarship has been published or is forthcoming in leading law reviews and peer-reviewed journals, including the Emory Law Journal, the UC Davis Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, and the Election Law Journal. He is regularly interviewed or quoted in national and international media on matters related to law and politics.

In this episode, our panel of Election Law experts: Steve, Terri, Tony, and Matt, break down the latest findings from the MIT Election Data + Science Lab’s 2024 Survey of the Performance of American Elections (SPAE).Part One dives into key takeaways from the SPAE report, including: • The evolving role of vote-by-mail post-pandemic • Record-breaking voter turnout in 2020 and 2024 • Improvements in wait times for both early and Election Day voting • The ongoing partisan divide in mail voting behavior Part Two explores the topic of mid-decade redistricting. With President Trump urging Texas governor and legislature to redistrict in advance of the 2026 midterms, states across the political spectrum are discussing the possibility of adopting the very unusual practice of redistricting in the middle of a decade. Our experts unpack the legal, political, and democratic implications and what it could mean for future elections. Stay tuned for future episodes as we continue to track this developing story. Key Data Points from the 2024 SPAE Report: • Voting by mail: The use of mail ballots in 2024 decreased from pandemic-era levels but stayed above historical norms. The percentage of voters casting ballots by mail decreased to 29%, down from 43% in 2020 but up from 21% in 2016. • The 2020 and 2024 presidential contests were among the highest-turnout elections in the past century. The 66% turnout rate in 2020 was the highest since 1908, and 2024’s rate of 64% was the second highest, tied with 1960. The last two midterm elections also featured unusually high turnout levels, with rates not seen since the 1960s. • Average wait times for both Election Day and early voters decreased. Eleven percent of voters on Election Day waited over 30 minutes to cast their ballots, compared to 14% in 2020. Fifteen percent of early voters experienced wait times exceeding 30 minutes, a decrease from 21% in 2020. • The partisan divide in mail voting continued, with more Democrats than Republicans utilizing this method, although the gap narrowed because of declining usage among Democrats. Resources & References: • MIT Election Lab Report: How We Voted in 2024: https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/… • Pew Research: Voter Turnout 2020–2024: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/…

Professor Rebecca Green, Director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School, joins us to explore the evolving landscape of election administration and transparency. She discusses the implications of public records requests on election officials, the importance of archiving in democratic systems, and how state-level policies can foster (or hinder) trust in the electoral process. Resources Mentioned: • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) • National Association of Election Officials (Election Center) Like, Share, and Subscribe to support independent conversations on law & democracy. Connect with Us: X: @lawdemocracypodEmail: [email protected] Rebecca Green Rebecca Green is a Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School where she teaches courses in Election Law, Redistricting & GIS, Privacy Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Contract Law. Professor Green directs the Election Law Program, a joint project of the Law School and the National Center for State Courts. ELP provides resources for judges deciding election disputes. In 2013, Professor Green co-founded Revive My Vote to assist Virginians with prior felony convictions regain the right to vote. In 2018, Professor Green joined the National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group convened to prevent and mitigate a range of election crises. In 2020, Green helped students co-found the Alliance of Students at the Polls (ASAP), a group mobilizing a national network of law students to support U.S. election

In this episode of Law and Democracy, we sit down with Dean Dan Tokaji of the University of Wisconsin College of Law—former Ohio State professor and long-time scholar of election law. We asked Dean Tokaji hard questions about election administration, judicial doctrines like Purcell, the meaning of “racist voting,” and the structural threats to democracy. Key themes The 2024 Election & Looking Ahead • What’s your assessment of the quality of election administration in 2024? • Are there areas of administration that still need improvement for 2026 and 2028? • Do you think improvements have been uniform across states? Purcell Doctrine & Judicial Intervention • What’s the problem with the Purcell Doctrine? • What happens when courts say it’s “too late” to intervene? • Could the courts soften Purcell or does Congress need to act? • Is Purcell disproportionately disadvantaging Democratic-leaning voters? Racist Voting & the Constitution • What is racist voting? • Are voters engaged in “state action” when casting ballots? • Can racist voting violate the Constitution? • Are you calling for new laws—or reinterpreting existing ones like Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Racial Polarization & Multiracial Coalitions • How should we understand racial bloc voting in a multiracial electorate? • What’s the threshold for determining racial polarization today? The State of American Democracy • How would you assess the health of American democracy in 2020–2024? • Is the core problem outside the electoral system itself? • Could social media or economic inequality be at the root of dysfunction? • Do campaign finance laws play a bigger role than we admit?Higher Education, Inequality & Trust • Why has public confidence in higher education declined? • How does access—or lack of access—factor into the perception of higher ed? • Is residential and partisan polarization reinforcing inequality in education? Subscribe for more conversations on law, democracy, and elections. Read Dan’s paper on Racist Voting: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c… About Daniel P. TokajiDan Tokaji is the Fred W. & Vi Miller Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School. As Dean, he serves as the chief academic and executive officer of the school, with responsibility for faculty and staff development, personnel oversight, strategic planning and institutional vision, fundraising, budget planning and management, curriculum, and student academic affairs.

In this timely episode, we welcome back Professor Dakota S. Rudesill, Associate Professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law, for an in-depth discussion on the legal boundaries of presidential authority in deploying military force within the United States. Prof. Rudesill unpacks the constitutional and statutory frameworks that govern the separation between civilian law enforcement and military power. The conversation delves into real-world applications, including President Trump’s controversial use of the National Guard and federal forces during nationwide protests. Topics covered include: • Legal definitions of rebellion and insurrection• Procedural requirements for domestic military deployment • Historical context of civil unrest and executive power• The role of habeas corpus and its potential suspension • Tensions between border security and immigration policy Whether you’re a law student, policy enthusiast, or just curious about the limits of presidential power, this episode offers a compelling exploration of one of the most critical issues in American constitutional law. About Dakota Professor Rudesill is a scholar, practitioner, and teacher of legislation and national security law and policy. At Moritz, he teaches National Security Law & Process, Secrecy & Surveillance, Legislation and Regulation, theLegislation Clinic, and Professional Responsibility (legal ethics). His scholarship has appeared or is forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal, Stanford Journal of International Law, Yale Journal of International Law, Harvard National Security Journal, Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, and the Washington University Law Review, among others. Professor Rudesill is a member of the editorial board of the peer-review Journal of National Security Law and Policy. He has served as Chair of the National Security Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS). Particular areas of emphasis in Professor Rudesill’s work are intelligence and secrecy (including secret law), arms control and nuclear weapons, legislation, and the experiential “learning-by-doing” training of professionals. Professor Rudesill leads a coalition pushing for a congressional clerkship program analogous to the judiciary’s law clerk program, and is the creator and director of The Ohio State National Security Simulation. This immersive annual exercise places over 130 OSU students from law, policy, intelligence, military, communications, and business management backgrounds in their respective roles as they grapple with current national security challenges and advise top practitioners in real time over two days.

In this episode we talk with Timothy Gabrielli, an associate professor of Theology at the University of Dayton, about the recent selection of a new Pope as a point of interesting comparison about electoral processes. Tim holds the Gudorf chair in Catholic intellectual traditions. We discuss the papal conclave through the lens of electoral theory. Drawing on the historic election of the first American Pope, the conversation highlights striking parallels—and contrasts—between religious and democratic decision-making processes.

In this episode of Law and Democracy, Steven Huefner, Tony Gaughan, and Terri Enns welcome Professor Dakota Rudesill (Moritz College of Law) to explore how professional communities — law, military, and intelligence — serve as critical stabilizers in the American constitutional system. They discuss the unique pressures facing these professions today, the framing and misconceptions around the “deep state,” and how historical lessons can inform the defense of democratic governance.About Dakota S. Rudesill: Professor Rudesill is a scholar, practitioner, and teacher of legislation and national security law and policy. At Moritz, he teaches National Security Law & Process, Secrecy & Surveillance, Legislation and Regulation, the Legislation Clinic, and Professional Responsibility (legal ethics).His scholarship has appeared or is forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal, Stanford Journal of International Law, Yale Journal of International Law, Harvard National Security Journal, Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, and the Washington University Law Review, among others. Professor Rudesill is a member of the editorial board of the peer-review Journal of National Security Law and Policy. He has served as Chair of the National Security Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS).Particular areas of emphasis in Professor Rudesill’s work are intelligence and secrecy (including secret law), arms control and nuclear weapons, legislation, and the experiential “learning-by-doing” training of professionals. Professor Rudesill leads a coalition pushing for a congressional clerkship program analogous to the judiciary’s law clerk program, and is the creator and director of The Ohio State National Security Simulation. This immersive annual exercise places over 130 OSU students from law, policy, intelligence, military, communications, and business management backgrounds in their respective roles as they grapple with current national security challenges and advise top practitioners in real time over two days.Professor Rudesill has advised senior leaders in all three branches of the federal government. He served the U.S. Congress for nine years, doing national security legislative work for the Senate Budget Committee and Sen. Kent Conrad. In the Executive Branch, as a member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, Professor Rudesill advised the President-Elect’s nominees for Director of National Intelligence and CIA Director. He served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and on the President’s Detention Policy Task Force at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the Judicial Branch, Professor Rudesill was a law clerk to James B. Loken, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.Prior to coming to Ohio State, from 2010 to 2013, Professor Rudesill was Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown Law Center, and directed the Federal Legislation & Administrative Clinic. Earlier in his career he was a law firm associate, a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and was selected for the Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship.Professor Rudesill received his BA from St. Olaf College and JD from Yale Law School.Sources Cited: 1. Dakota Rudesill’s article in Hofstra Law Review discussing the professional tribes (law, arms, intelligence). 2. The Federalist Papers (Madison and Hamilton referenced several times). 3. Mueller Report (regarding ties to Russian intelligence and conduct during Trump’s first term). 4. Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State (civil-military relations theory). 5. Roman historical examples (Republic to Empire transition discussed).

Join the Election Law Program at the Ohio State University for an engaging conversation with Professor Michael Kang of Northwestern University. In this episode, we discuss: – Insights from Nick Stephanopoulos’s new book “Aligning Election Law” – The shift in election law from focusing on competition to emphasizing representation and alignment – The rise of hyper partisanship in American politics and its historical background – Key factors driving increased partisanship, such as voting systems and campaign finance – The challenges in addressing campaign finance issues in light of court rulings – The potential impact of reforms in public financing and electoral systems Guest: Michael S. Kang is a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance, voting rights, redistricting, judicial elections, and corporate governance. He is co-author, with Joanna Shepherd, of Free to Judge: The Power of Campaign Money in Judicial Elections (Stanford 2023). Hosts: Steve Huefner, Deputy Director, Election Law Program at OSU Ned Foley, Director of Election Law at OSU Terri Enns, Senior Fellow, Election Law Program at OSU Tony Gaughan, Senior Fellow, Election Law Program at OSU #electionlaw #democracy #politicalscience #ohiostate #politicalalignment #symposium #podcast

Are voters willing to sacrifice alignment for their side to win? Join us for a discussion on Law & Democracy, featuring Joshua Sellers, Professor of Law at the University of Texas. This episode focuses on the recent symposium hosted by the Ohio State Law Journal. We explore Nick Stephanopoulos’ book, “Aligning Election Law,” and examine aligning our democratic institutions with the broader American electorate. Joshua Sellers shares his perspective as a panelist at the symposium, offering reflections on intra-party alignment, collective alignment, and hyper-partisanship. Sellers says, “Intraparty alignment in some circumstances might be able to facilitate collective alignment.” He also notes, “Tribalism and partisanship is necessarily going to be part of the story.”In this episode, we discuss: Nick Stephanopoulos’ “Aligning Election Law”: Understanding the concepts. Intra-Party Alignment vs. Collective Alignment: Is there a connection? The Role of Political Parties: Examining party alignment and the electorate. Hyper-Partisanship and Tribalism: How do these forces influence voter preferences? Competition vs. Alignment: Are these conflicting values? Democratic Legitimacy: What do voter preferences reveal about public support for democracy?Referenced Material: Cox versus Republican Party of Utah: A Tenth Circuit case study on intraparty alignment The role of independent voters in Arizona Guest: Joshua Sellers, Professor of Law, University of Texas Hosts: Steve Huefner, Deputy Director, Election Law Program at OSU Ned Foley, Director of Election Law at OSU Terri Enns, Senior Fellow, Election Law Program at OSU Tony Gaughan, Senior Fellow, Election Law Program at OSU

Is American election law fundamentally misaligned with the will of the people? Nick Stephanopoulos, author of “Aligning Election Law,” joins Law & Democracy to discuss his groundbreaking theory. Discover how alignment can be measured, why it matters for democracy, and what can be done to fix the gaps between what people want and what the government does.About Nicholas StephanopoulosNicholas Stephanopoulos’s research and teaching interests include election law, constitutional law, administrative law, legislation, and comparative law. His work is particularly focused on the intersection of democratic theory, empirical political science, and the American electoral system. He is the author of Aligning Election Law (2024) and a coauthor of Election Law: Cases and Materials (7th ed. 2022). His academic articles have appeared in, among others, the California Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, New York University Law Review, Stanford Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Virginia Law Review, and Yale Law Journal. He has also written for popular publications including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Atlantic, New Republic, Slate, and Vox. He has been involved in several litigation efforts as well, including two partisan gerrymandering cases based on his scholarship and decided by the Supreme Court. He continues to work on litigation and advocacy as the Director of Strategy of Harvard Law School’s Election Law Clinic.

How do existing election systems contribute to political polarization and prevent majority-preferred candidates from winning? What’s the connection between voter preferences and policy decisions? And how can reforms help rebuild trust in government? Join Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Law at NYU, as he delves into these critical questions, offering expert insights on election law, democracy, and political reform. Register now to hear more from Rick at the Ohio State Law Journal’s 2025 Symposium! Election Law in a Misaligned America | 2025 Symposium The Ohio State Law Journal presents its 2025 Symposium, featuring top legal scholars discussing Alignment Theory and the challenges of election law. The event will highlight Nick Stephanopoulos, Harvard Law Professor and author of Aligning Election Law, as the keynote speaker. Date: Friday, Feb. 21, 2025 Time: 8:30 AM – 4:15 PM

In this episode of Law and Democracy, we provide an exclusive sneak peek into the Ohio State Law Journal’s 2025 Symposium. This year’s event, held at the Moritz College of Law on February 21st, centers on Alignment Theory, a groundbreaking concept explored in ‘Aligning Election Law (Theoretical Perspectives in Law)’ Book by keynote speaker Nick Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Join hosts Steve Huefner, Ned Foley, Tony Gaughan, and Terry Enns, as they discuss the symposium’s themes, the pressing misalignments in election law, and the steps needed to ensure our electoral system better reflects the will of the voters. We also highlight the impressive lineup of scholars attending the event and share how you can participate—either in person or via Zoom. Don’t miss this engaging conversation on the future of election law and how Alignment Theory could shape the democratic process.

In this episode of Law & Democracy, we are thrilled to welcome Lori Ringhand, a distinguished professor of law at the University of Georgia. Professor Ringhand is an expert on judicial confirmations and has authored several books on the topic, including Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change and Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. Join us as we dive into the complexities of the judicial confirmation process, explore its impact on democracy, and discuss how race and gender influence these critical proceedings. Professor Ringhand shares valuable insights based on years of research and experience in the field of election law. In this episode, you’ll learn:• The historical evolution of Supreme Court confirmation hearings • How constitutional change is influenced by judicial appointments• The role of gender and race in shaping the confirmation process Trivia Question: who was the 1st judicial clerk for a United States Supreme Court. Justice clerks, of course, are very important in the Supreme Court’s work today, but who was the 1st person to ever serve as a judicial clerk for a United States Supreme Court justice. Look for the answer on our next episode. About Lori A. Ringhand: Lori A. Ringhand teaches courses on constitutional law and election law. She has been a member of the University of Georgia School of Law faculty since 2008 and was named a Hosch Professor in 2012 and awarded a Josiah Meigs Distinguished Professorship, UGA’s highest teaching honor, in 2021. She is a nationally known Supreme Court scholar and the author of two books about the Supreme Court confirmation process: Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change (with Paul M. Collins) published by Cambridge University Press; and Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, (with Christina L. Boyd and Paul M. Collins), forthcoming Fall 2023 with Stanford University Press. She also is the co-author of Constitutional Law: A Context and Practices Casebook, which is part of a series of casebooks dedicated to incorporating active teaching and learning methods into traditional law school casebooks. Ringhand also publishes extensively on election law related issues, and was awarded a Fulbright Distinguished Chair Award at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland to explore the different approaches to campaign finance regulation taken by the United States and the United Kingdom. Ringhand served as the law school’s associate dean for academic affairs from 2015 to 2018 and as the interim director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center from January 2020 to July 2021. She was presented with the C. Ronald Ellington Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2010 and 2015, and the John C. O’Byrne Memorial Faculty Award for Furthering Student-Faculty Relations in 2017. For the 2016-17 academic year, she served as a Women Leadership Fellow, a program developed by the UGA Provost’s Office. Ringhand graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School, where she served as an articles editor on the Wisconsin Law Review. She also holds a Bachelor of Civil Law degree, awarded with distinction, from the University of Oxford. Before coming to UGA, she served on the faculty of the University of Kentucky College of Law and as a visiting scholar at the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law.

In this insightful episode, we explore the complexities of presidential transitions with expert commentary from Professor Bridget Dooling. From logistical challenges to the legal frameworks that guide the transfer of power, we uncover what makes this critical process work smoothly—or where it can falter. Professor Dooling discusses historical examples, the importance of preparation, and how public policy plays a crucial role in ensuring continuity in governance. Whether you’re passionate about politics, a history enthusiast, or simply curious about the inner workings of government, this conversation offers valuable perspectives. Key topics include: Why smooth presidential transitions matter. Lessons from past administrations. How transitions affect federal agencies and public policy. Watch now to gain a better understanding of the processes that uphold democracy and the challenges involved in transferring power. Don’t forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more engaging discussions! Trivia Question: “who was the last President inaugurated on March 4 instead of January 20?” Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes! #transitationelection2024 #democracy #camping

In this insightful episode, Professor Derek T. Muller shares his perspective on the 2024 election and the current state of U.S. election law. Derek describes the 2024 election as surprisingly normal despite widespread pre-election concerns about potential disruptions. He reflects on the stability and improvements in election administration since 2020, noting how states have learned valuable lessons from the challenges of past elections, such as the pandemic-driven complications and disputes over ballot procedures. The discussion highlights several important factors contributing to the smooth operation of the 2024 election, including wider electoral margins that reduced contention over close results, and administrative changes, like expedited absentee ballot counting. The conversation also delves into ongoing issues in states like Pennsylvania, where local control and partisan conflicts continue to create complex challenges in election law interpretation. Tune in for a nuanced look at how U.S. election laws are evolving, the risks posed by close margins, and the importance of transparent and reliable election systems. Trivia Question: “Which U.S. President holds the record for the largest number of unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations—that is, nominations that were rejected by the Senate, withdrawn, or lapsed?” Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this episode of Law and Democracy, we unpack the results and implications of the 2024 presidential election with experts from Ohio State University’s Election Law Program. Join our experts as they analyze turnout trends, including the rise in battleground state participation versus the drop in non-battleground states. They also explore reforms such as the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 and reflect on the election’s smooth operation and the role of trust in democratic processes. This week’s Trivia question is.. How many times in the last hundred years has the victorious presidential ticket featured two lawyers, with both the president and vice president as lawyers?Listeners are encouraged to look back and test their political knowledge—this one has happened more often than you might expect! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this episode, our experts also examines the 2024 U.S. election, covering voter turnout, election myths, and challenges like long lines and bomb threats. We explore why a Condorcet voting system could lead to fairer elections and moderate political outcomes in the U.S., focusing on the potential for center-right candidates like Nikki Haley to fare better in a less polarized system. Edward Foley discusses how Condorcet voting could combat extremism, foster coalition building, and better represent the electorate’s will. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the current state of American democracy and the future of election reform. This week’s Trivia question is.. How many times in the last 100 years has the victorious presidential ticket not featured a lawyer as either the president or vice president? Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this special Election Day episode our election law experts discuss the latest developments on Election Day while they’re happening!This week’s Trivia question is.. Who is the last Supreme Court Justice to have held elected office? Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this episode, we discuss the current state of early voting just days before Election Day. With reports of arson attacks on ballot drop boxes in Washington and Oregon, we discuss the implications of these destructive acts—especially in tightly contested districts. On a brighter note, we celebrate the remarkable turnout, with over 46 million early votes already cast in the 2024 presidential election. Join us as we analyze the highs and lows of the early voting process and what it means for the upcoming election. Don’t miss this crucial discussion as we approach one of the most important days in our democratic process! This week’s Trivia question is.. Who ran for the Republican nomination nine times in the 20th century and came close to securing it twice? Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this episode, we critically examine the recent Elon Musk Sweepstakes, a petition circulating in battleground states that solicits voter support for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. This initiative, limited to registered voters, offers participants a chance to win a $1 million prize upon signing the petition. The emergence of three winners has prompted a crucial inquiry into the legality of these sweepstakes: do they contravene federal statutes prohibiting the monetary incentivization of voter registration? Join our panel of experts as we delve into the legal ramifications of Musk’s campaign, scrutinize the complexities of federal election law, and assess whether the sweepstakes serve a genuine purpose in encouraging voter registration or function primarily as a data-gathering strategy for electoral mobilization. This week’s Trivia question is..Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has made history by securing his party’s nomination three times—a rare achievement in the political landscape, especially considering the constraints of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. Notably, since Trump lost in 2020, he remains eligible to run for another term. So, the question is: Who are the seven other major party nominees in U.S. history who have successfully won their party’s presidential nomination three times or more, spanning from the 1790s to the present?

In this episode, we explore the significant role mail-in ballots play in modern American elections. With 43% of voters casting their ballots by mail in 2020, and similar numbers expected for 2024, we discuss the unique challenges and legal controversies that come with this voting method. From inadvertent ballot rejections to the impact of COVID-19 on voter preferences, we examine how mail-in voting has transformed election participation and the implications for future elections. Join us as we unpack the complexities of this vital aspect of our electoral process! This week’s Trivia question is.. “Which founding father lost his first election because he refused to buy alcohol for voters, believing it was corrupting?” Stay tuned for our next episode to find out! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!

In this episode, we explore the intersection of natural disasters and elections, with Hurricane Milton approaching the Gulf Coast of Florida and the Presidential election just weeks away. we tackle critical questions surrounding how election officials can accommodate voters affected by natural disasters. Our hosts, Anthony Gaughan, Steven Huefner, Ned Foley, and Terri Enns, dive into the challenges faced by election officials in planning for contingencies like hurricanes, the importance of legal frameworks, and recent lawsuits aimed at extending voter registration deadlines due to the storm. We discuss historical precedents, including past elections impacted by disasters, and the need for built-in flexibility in state laws. As we navigate through the complexities of ensuring voter access amidst chaos, we also reflect on how climate change may reshape future electoral landscapes. This week’s Trivia question isWhat campaign finance mistake did George Washington make in his first election that cost him the race? In the 1755 Virginia House of Burgesses election, a young Washington made a last-minute error—a rookie mistake—that led to his defeat. He never repeated that mistake in his subsequent long career in colonial, state, and national politics. What exactly was this pivotal mistake?Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!Follow us on X @lawdemocracypod

In this episode of Law and Democracy, we dive into the evolving landscape of early voting and its impact on our election process. With early voting starting in several states across the country, we explore the challenges political parties, particularly the Republican Party, face in mobilizing voters through mail-in ballots and early voting methods. We also discuss the “blue shift” — the phenomenon where early voting tends to lean Democratic, and how the increasing number of early ballots is changing the way campaigns operate. What does this mean for our traditional understanding of Election Day, and how are candidates adapting to this new reality? JJoin us as we break down these shifts in voting behavior, their implications for the democratic process, and what it means for future elections. This week’s Trivia question isWhat was the monetary limit set by federal law on individual contributions to Presidential candidate campaigns in 1972, the year of the Watergate break-in? You might be surprised by the answer in our next episode! Leave us your answers in the comments section.Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes! Follow us on X @lawdemocracypod

Georgia State Election Board has introduced a new rule mandating that counties hand count all ballots cast on Election Day. What does this mean for election officials and voters? In this episode, we explore the potential challenges, including the timing and accuracy of hand counting and its impact on public trust in the election process. We also discuss the balance between transparency and efficiency, with experts weighing in on whether this late change is a necessary step toward greater confidence in Georgia’s elections. This week’s Trivia question isWhere did Abraham Lincoln receive the majority of his campaign funds during his 1864 Presidential reelection? Stay tuned next week for the answer! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!Find us on X @lawdemocracypod

Today, we discuss three key topics in Ohio election law and First Amendment issues. First, we discuss the Citizens Not Politicians v. Ohio Ballot Board case, which challenges the language used in a ballot initiative aimed at ending partisan gerrymandering in Ohio. Legal expert Ned Foley, who signed an amicus brief in the case, explains the arguments at play. Next, we cover a recent Ohio federal court ruling that blocked a law banning non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, from contributing to state election campaigns. We explore the potential future outcomes in the Sixth Circuit and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, we look at the Justice Department’s recent indictment of Russian nationals involved in spreading propaganda in the U.S., and discuss whether these cases raise First Amendment concerns. Join us for expert analysis on these pressing legal issues shaping elections and free speech. This week’s Trivia question isWhat’s the election law issue that caused trouble for Bobby Kennedy during his 1964 Senate campaign?Stay tuned next week for the answer! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes! Follow us on X @lawdemocracypod

In this episode, Ned Foley highlights the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, who hoped for a non-partisan system but instead saw the rise of intense two-party competition. But what happens when third-party candidates threaten to disrupt that balance? With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign stirring up conversation, our experts explore how the system struggles with third-party spoilers and the potential consequences for the 2024 election. We discuss the history of third-party candidates as spoilers, from George Wallace in 1968 to Ralph Nader in 2000, and reflect on the possibility of ranked-choice voting as a solution. Could this system provide a way to avoid the spoiler effect and ensure majority winners? We also examine the complexities of how states determine their presidential electors, with a focus on whether changes, like ranked-choice voting, could resolve these issues in the future. Plus, we touch on the current state of Pennsylvania’s court ruling on mail-in ballots and the potential implications for the 2024 election. Could recent legal rulings threaten the integrity of the system as we know it? This week’s Trivia question isWho was the 1st Supreme Court justice, current or former at the time of the election, to receive a vote in the electoral college?Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!Follow us on X @lawdemocracypod

Welcome to the inaugural episode of the Law & Democracy Podcast! In this episode, we dive into some of the most pressing legal and political developments that are shaping democracy today. Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Requirement On August 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Arizona’s controversial law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. We’ll break down the ruling, discuss its implications for Arizona voters, and explore how this decision affects the November election. Georgia’s Election Board Certification Changes The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against Georgia’s State Election Board over new rules that could delay election result certification. We examine the legal challenges and the potential impact on upcoming elections in this critical swing state. Robert Kennedy’s Suspension of His Presidential Campaign In a surprising move, Robert Kennedy Jr. suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Donald Trump. We’ll discuss the political and legal ramifications of this decision and what it means for the 2024 race. This week’s Trivia question iswhich President had the smallest margin of victory in the decisive battleground, state or States in the 20th century? Leave us your answers in the comments section. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on future episodes!Follow us on X @lawdemocracypod