TONYA MOSLEY, HOST:
That is FRESH AIR. I am Tonya Mosley. The 2026 midterms are a little bit over a yr away, however questions on election integrity are already entrance and heart. Simply this week, The New York Occasions reported that the Justice Division is quietly working to construct a nationwide voter roll by gathering delicate voter knowledge from states, a transfer specialists warn may very well be used to revive false claims of widespread fraud and undermine confidence in future elections.
And lately, President Trump has overtly proposed utilizing government energy to ban each mail-in ballots and digital voting machines. My visitor right now, regulation scholar Richard Hasen, has warned in a latest op-ed that an order like that may not solely be towards the regulation, it will wield, as he writes, the equipment of presidency to sow doubt, undermine belief and tilt the election enjoying subject.
These warnings echo a broader wave of concern. Earlier this week, Mom Jones additionally printed a report on what it is calling Mission 2026, a coordinated effort by Trump and his allies to rewrite voting guidelines, redraw congressional maps and strain state and federal officers who’re liable for overseeing elections. All of it raises a profound query – are our democratic establishments robust sufficient to resist that sort of pressure?
Richard Hasen teaches regulation and political science at UCLA, the place he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Mission. He’s additionally the writer of quite a few books on election regulation 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 Occasions is reporting that the Justice Division is requesting voter data – the Social Safety numbers, driver’s license information – from greater than 30 states so as to assess whether or not undocumented immigrants are voting illegally. As a authorized scholar, what’s your response to this information?
HASEN: Properly, I believe we have to set the stage a little bit bit right here and perceive how elections are run in the USA. So in most different democracies, there is a nationwide nonpartisan authority that runs elections. They’ve a nationwide function of voters. In most of these nations, there is a nationwide identification card, which can be utilized to find out citizenship. In the USA, we’ve the alternative. Now we have a hyper-decentralized system. So it isn’t even simply on the state stage, though states do keep statewide voter registration databases as a federal regulation that got here after 2000 that requires that. However most of our elections are run on the county stage.
So you could have totally different machines. You will have totally different types of the poll, all totally different sorts of guidelines for reconcile issues with the poll. These could fluctuate once 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 at hand 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 may find yourself in courtroom, the place the Trump administration may attempt to compel the knowledge, 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 knowledge. He is redacted data to guard voter privateness that was demanded for some sort of investigation that DOJ needs to do, and that’s already in courtroom.
So we’d see battles in courtroom combating over this, however there are going to be some states, significantly Republican states, which might be in all probability now going to be keen to show this over, although through the first Trump administration, there was a variety of resistance even from Republicans. And I ought to level out one of many fundamental the explanation why we do not have a nationwide documentary proof of citizenship regulation right now 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 fearful that if Trump can create these nationwide guidelines for elections whereas there is a Republican president, Democrats may do one thing else later.
MOSLEY: I need to discuss a little bit bit extra about most of the different issues which might be additionally occurring in tandem with this newest information. So past questions on knowledge assortment, there are additionally proposals that change the very manner that Individuals will forged their vote. So President Trump only in the near past 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 truly do that? Does a president have the ability to do that? And is there any reality behind these claims about accuracy and expense?
HASEN: Yeah. After he wrote this Reality Social put up about mail-in ballots and voting machines, he then had one other put up extra lately the place he stated, we will have nationwide voter ID. So here is the factor. A president’s tweet or reality, no matter they name it on Reality Social…
MOSLEY: Proper. Yeah.
HASEN: That is not a royal edict. It is not as if Trump is a king who can say, you recognize, here’s what it needs to be, so it shall be written, so it shall be accomplished.
MOSLEY: That is true. However most of the issues that he is written on these social media platforms he is gone on to attempt to enact.
HASEN: Certain. 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 style for the conduct of congressional elections, topic to Congress’ override. The president has no function in any of this. The president’s function 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 reality, although, to his claims that these voting machines are inaccurate and that mail-in ballots are costly? I imply, you talked about these modifications in 2000 with the addition of the voting machines. These machines are very previous. They’re now 25 years previous. Is there any legitimacy to his claims?
HASEN: Properly, let’s first speak about mail-in balloting. Is there fraud with mail and ballots? There’s little or no election fraud in the USA, and the way in which we all know is that any even trace that there is a fraud downside is investigated. And it seems, I might say, for the reason that Sixties, particularly for the reason that Nineteen Eighties, we have had very clear elections in the USA, only a few situations of fraud. When it does occur, it is typically election officers who’re committing fraud, not voters, so voter fraud’s a foul identify. However it’s true that there are typically manipulation of mail-in ballots, but it surely’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 – for those who 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. Exhausting to get ballot employees. So we did a variety of voting by mail. Trump claimed in a whole bunch of tweets that there was fraud within the elections.
MOSLEY: Fraud. Yep.
HASEN: It was totally investigated. There have been over 60 lawsuits. No proof of any important fraud wherever within the nation. And it was so investigated by journalists, by election officers, in courtroom circumstances. And so there is a small downside with fraud on this nation.
MOSLEY: However it’s not important sufficient.
HASEN: To swing a presidential election would require an enormous quantity of fraud that may be very laborious to cover and could be very – so for those who intercepted a whole bunch of individuals’s ballots, effectively, these individuals would complain. They might go to vote, and they might say, sorry, you already voted. As a result of states have data. They’ll look – oh, you already voted. You’ll be able to’t vote once more. Properly, I did not vote. ? We’d – that is how we discover out. When there are these uncommon situations of fraud, there are safeguards in place.
MOSLEY: Can we discuss a little bit bit concerning the function of state leaders – governors, secretaries of state, attorneys normal – and the function that they play in elections? You’ve got famous that even well-meaning election officers like secretaries of state, as an illustration, could tilt in the direction of a celebration. I am fascinated by this within the bigger scope of President Trump concentrating 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 stage, we additionally haven’t got a nonpartisan system of elections in a lot of this nation. So we typically have election officers, just like the secretary of state, who could be elected as a Democrat or a Republican. Typically we’ve county boards that decide the outcomes, you recognize, certify. This is what the vote rely is. Typically, these are partisan boards…
MOSLEY: Yeah.
HASEN: …Which are Democratic or Republican. For probably the most half, I believe most people who find themselves concerned in elections on this nation have an allegiance to be sure that this rely is correct, that we will have a free and truthful election. However after all, if you’re a Secretary of State, and you are a Democrat otherwise you’re a Republican, you would possibly, in an in depth case, be swayed, even subconsciously, by what could be within the curiosity of your get together.
MOSLEY: I believe it is actually fascinating that you just have 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 most effective for it to be decentralized. Are you able to simply restate, like, what has modified your thoughts?
HASEN: So the rationale that I not need a nationwide nonpartisan system of election administration in the USA is as a result of our democracy is so weak and since the Supreme Courtroom specifically has given the president a lot energy by issues just like the rulings on the immunity that the president has, the unitary government concept that appears to be giving the president the ability to fireside or intervene with impartial businesses, that it is an excessive amount of energy within the palms 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, although 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 strategy to attempt to decrease the affect of an authoritarian-leaning president towards an election system.
MOSLEY: So Mom Jones lately printed this text by investigative journalist Ari Berman, and it raises this situation that President Trump will use unrest as a pretext to declare martial regulation 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 here is what I am fearful about – not essentially declaring martial regulation – 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 may declare some sort 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 strive as a result of, you recognize, I believe he is accomplished a variety of issues already that he does not have the ability to do.
And so, you recognize, what’s it going to imply to have to face as much as the federal government to be sure that 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 towards authorities resistance that’s making an attempt to disenfranchise individuals, I believe individuals would take to the streets as a result of that can be a direct assault on democracy for those who intervene with individuals’s potential to vote.
However I believe it is not possible that the president would say the elections are canceled. However there’s a number of issues he may do along with his energy with the army, along with his energy over federal authorities equipment that may make it very tough for some individuals to vote. And he is obtained an incentive to do that, which is that if Democrats take again management of Congress, they will make the remaining years of his time period way more tough. And so the stakes are very excessive, a lot increased than we usually consider a midterm election…
MOSLEY: Yeah.
HASEN: …Being.
MOSLEY: Let’s take a brief break. For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, we’re speaking about the way forward for free and truthful elections beneath a second Trump administration. My visitor is Richard Hasen, a professor of regulation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Mission. 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 right now I am talking with UCLA regulation professor Richard Hasen concerning the mounting threats to American democracy as we head into the 2026 midterms. Hasen is the writer of quite a few books on election regulation and democracy, and he 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 grasp 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 Battle, we held elections.
MOSLEY: Sure.
HASEN: So the concept that you – and there – you recognize, there was speak about this throughout COVID. , I keep in mind getting a variety of questions from journalists about delaying elections. I imply, that is a really harmful factor. Trump lately had a – some sort of Oval Workplace assembly that was open to the press with Zelenskyy. And over in Ukraine, the conflict is raging and they also’ve needed to postpone their elections, and Trump began speaking about that. , he is a little bit inquisitive about that, identical to he is a little bit inquisitive about, perhaps I may run for a 3rd time period. , persons are saying I may. I in all probability will not, however perhaps I’ll. ?
So I have been researching a brand new ebook, and I went again and I used to be wanting within the Nineteen Seventies at Republican poll safety measures, which was methods to attempt to, you recognize, I believe, suppress the vote of people that have been more likely to vote for Democrats, significantly in minority communities. And one of many issues it stated on this guide that I used to be taking a look at from 1976 is that simply the publicity of claiming you are going to do that stuff can deter individuals from voting and could be demobilizing. I imply, this was a promoting level of this, is it will discourage individuals who would possibly in any other case be on the fence about whether or not it is well worth the problem 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 potential 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. It’s important to work out the place your polling place is. It’s important to ensure you’re registered to vote. Being registered to vote is the most important obstacle for people who find themselves nonvoters as a result of they by no means registered, in order that they by no means vote. For those who’re instructed that, oh, effectively, there could be ICE on the polls, otherwise you’re instructed that, you recognize, there’s going to be an enormous problem…
MOSLEY: Yeah.
HASEN: …It may very well be demobilizing. Now, it may well minimize each methods. One of many issues that is occurring that I believe is underappreciated by the media is that as a result of there’s a shift within the composition of the Republican Celebration in the 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 tougher to register and vote. And so this, in some methods, could also be self-defeating. It will – it is – I believe it is usually demobilizing for individuals when there’s all this combating over elections and when there’s these threats. However I believe the intent, at the least a part of Trump’s intent, is to discourage individuals from voting. And in addition, if Democrats truly win, it is a manner of making an attempt to delegitimize Democratic victories and declare that they are in some way illegitimate.
MOSLEY: Can we discuss a little 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 know-how turns into extra refined, how important are international threats to our voting system?
HASEN: So I believe it is crucial right here to differentiate between the knowledge surroundings, the place I believe there are – a number of disinformation goes to be on the market.
MOSLEY: Proper.
HASEN: It has been that manner.
MOSLEY: Misinformation and disinformation, yeah, on-line and the whole lot. Sure.
HASEN: In order that, I believe, goes to occur. And I believe we will see extra of it, partially as a result of Trump has dismantled a few of the safety, cybersecurity and different intelligence that was used to cease a few of this and to publicize the, you recognize, not simply Russians, however Chinese language and Iranian and different nations which might 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 gave the impression to be simply to forged doubt on the integrity of the system. We’d see that once more.
It will be very laborious 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 realize it. You’d complain. Like, we’d discover out about that. And the way in which our voting machines, those that tabulate votes – these should not the sorts of issues which might be simply manipulated by international entities. They – you recognize, they don’t seem to be linked to a single pc mind the place, you recognize, any individual may hack in and, you recognize, make the vote totals change or one thing like that.
And if – even when the machines have been hacked – and I am not an professional on pc science, however I’ve talked to pc scientists about this. One of the best ways to take care of the potential for somebody, and may very well be somebody home – it does not must be a international interference – somebody domestically making an attempt to mess with the way in which the voting machines rely the ballots, is that we do these partial hand counts to be sure that issues line up. And if they do not, then we examine. And, you recognize, often, there are issues. They virtually all the time change into some sort of human error or some sort of glitch, not any individual deliberately messing with these machines. So I believe it is more likely that we will see affect campaigns to attempt to affect how Individuals vote.
MOSLEY: Our visitor right now is Richard Hasen, an election regulation scholar who has been writing concerning the dangers dealing with 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 regulation and professor of political science at UCLA, the place he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Mission. His ebook, “A Actual Proper To Vote: How A Constitutional Modification Can Safeguard American Democracy,” was printed final yr. Hasen is the writer of a number of books about elections and democracy. He is at present engaged on a ebook tracing the arc of American democracy from 1964 to 2024. This interview was recorded yesterday.
Professor Hasen, I need to speak about 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 believe I need to undergo a little bit little bit of, like, strolling by way of how congressional and state legislative redistricting often works in the USA. So what units the method in movement, and what requirements must be adopted?
HASEN: Each 10 years, the Structure says we’ve to rely all of the individuals. That is known 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 depends upon relative inhabitants. And so it modifications…
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 any individual in every state – and state regulation determines who that is – has to attract up a lot of districts with the identical variety of individuals in them. Supreme Courtroom 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 sophisticated about how they do it, however they draw the district traces. In lots of different states, it isn’t an impartial fee that pulls the traces. It is the state legislature that pulls the traces. And when state legislatures draw the traces, they have a tendency to attract the traces to favor their very own get together. 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 towards the regulation, however, I imply, are there authorized checks to cease legislatures from redrawing maps purely for partisan acquire?
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 alternative. 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 might be in massive 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 after they draw their traces. And that creates some pressure with Part 2 ‘trigger they must take race under consideration, however they cannot take race under consideration an excessive amount of. And the Supreme Courtroom is at present contemplating take care of that. However what they’re allowed to do, because of a Supreme Courtroom determination in 2019 known as Rucho v. Widespread Trigger, is they will draw nevertheless they need their traces to favor their political get together. So in Rucho, the Supreme Courtroom stated that partisan gerrymandering claims can’t be heard in federal courtroom as a result of the courtroom doesn’t have a regular to know when taking get together 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 by way of an impartial fee. What Proposition 50 would do is it will say just for congressional elections and just for the subsequent three congressional elections – ’26, ’28 and 2030 – earlier than the subsequent census, California isn’t going to make use of the commission-drawn traces for Congress. It is as a substitute going to make use of traces which have been handed by the state legislature. And these traces would create as much as 5 extra Democratic seats, which might considerably negate what was occurring in Texas…
MOSLEY: Texas. Proper.
HASEN: …With the Texas gerrymandering.
MOSLEY: Can we discuss concerning the integrity of the Voting Rights Act? I do know one authorized scholar stated the regulation’s protections have skilled loss of life by a thousand cuts over the previous couple of many years. How would you characterize it at this second?
HASEN: Properly, the Supreme Courtroom 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 may change their voting guidelines to point out that they would not make minority voters worse off. So Part 5 is actually gone in the USA. 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 Courtroom has been whittling away and whittling away at Part 2 for the previous couple of many years. And now, in a case out of Louisiana, it’s attainable that the Supreme Courtroom goes to declare Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. And I would say if that occurs, most of the most distinguished members of Congress who symbolize minority communities may very well be gerrymandered out of their seats as a result of there would not be a Part 2 constraint on how district traces are drawn.
MOSLEY: If the Supreme Courtroom guidelines to principally intestine Part 2, the place does that go away the Voting Rights Act?
HASEN: Properly, there are nonetheless components of the Voting Rights Act that may nonetheless be in impact – for instance, the components that require bilingual ballots for individuals. There’s part of the Voting Rights Act that bans literacy exams nationwide. These two may very well be attacked, however gutting Part 2 would not straight have an effect on these. However the two massive components of the Voting Rights Act traditionally have been Part 5 and Part 2. And I believe that if we ended up with the Supreme Courtroom holding now that Part 2 is unconstitutional, that it may probably spur a brand new civil rights motion on this nation as a result of it will basically change what has been understood to be the regulation for many years.
There’s additionally one other assault on the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Courtroom could 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 Courtroom at present and their choices, what’s the probability of those choices being made?
HASEN: So the Louisiana case, which is at present earlier than the courtroom – it is known 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 chance to elect their candidate of alternative. And so Louisiana did that, however they drew it in such a manner that was oddly formed to in any other case defend their Republican incumbents. So then there was a follow-on lawsuit claiming, once you drew these districts now to adjust to the Voting Rights Act, you made race crucial factor, and that is unconstitutional beneath 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 Courtroom’s time period in June, reasonably than resolve the case, the courtroom stated, we will 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 Courtroom. So now, October 15, the Supreme Courtroom’s going to listen to argument on this case once more, and it is an enormous, enormous query.
MOSLEY: Sure.
HASEN: You do not tee up such a query until there are at the least some justices desirous about doing this. So there are a selection of potentialities. One is the Supreme Courtroom punts the difficulty ‘trigger they’ve a number of methods to not resolve it, and perhaps they simply sign, Voting Rights Act finish is coming quickly. Or they may 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 accomplished. Or – and that is what I believe is most certainly – 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 sort of what I name the John Roberts Particular. Chief Justice Roberts likes to do issues that appear to be they’re minimal, however in reality, they’ve enormous 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 have been headed on this route?
HASEN: Let me take you again to 1982. That is when Congress handed right now’s model of Part 2, that basically expanded minority voting rights.
MOSLEY: Sure.
HASEN: The purpose particular person within the Reagan administration who was combating towards 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 have 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 few of the conservative justices on the courtroom for a while.
MOSLEY: A while.
HASEN: And the massive shock was truly in 2022, when Roberts joined the liberals and Justice Kavanaugh…
MOSLEY: Sure.
HASEN: …In upholding Alabama’s district. And I believe a part of that was as a result of Alabama was so blatantly making an attempt to go towards precedent with out truly saying that that is what they have been doing. However Justice Kavanaugh, in that 2022 case known as Allen versus Milligan – he wrote a separate opinion, a concurrence, the place he stated, you recognize, 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. In order that they know weaken, make toothless the Voting Rights Act with out truly placing it down, if that is what they need to do.
MOSLEY: For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, we’re speaking with Richard Hasen, a professor of regulation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Mission. We’ll be proper again after a brief break. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF WOOKIE SONG, “SCRAPPY”)
MOSLEY: That is FRESH AIR. Right now, 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 speak about third-term discuss. So we all know the twenty second Modification flatly bans anybody from being elected president greater than twice, however President Trump has often hinted that there could be ways in which he can work round that. How fail-safe is that two-term restrict?
HASEN: So I believe the Structure’s twenty second Modification is evident – not more than two phrases. That needs to be the top of it. Nevertheless, earlier than this Supreme Courtroom, are there arguments that may very well be made to attempt to get round that? We have already heard individuals making an attempt to make these arguments. How may it occur? For instance, the subsequent ticket is Vance-Trump reasonably than Trump-Vance.
MOSLEY: Sure, he is already floated that. After which he would take over sooner or later 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 may then be operating towards Donald Trump…
MOSLEY: Proper…
HASEN: …Or operating towards 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 believe that may be proper. , 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 are able to speak about this. I believe the principle objective of this discuss is twofold. No. 1, it drives liberals loopy as a result of they’re already fearful – rightly so – about Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and the way he is interfering with elections, and this is able to 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 previous. He is additionally unpopular now. It is actually unlikely he’d be elected. However, you recognize – and with him speaking about that, effectively, then the information isn’t crammed with hypothesis. Will it’s Vance? Will it’s Rubio? Who’ll be the Republican nominee subsequent time? And so it is a manner for him to not cede his energy.
MOSLEY: How a lot harm does it do to democracy when each election is framed pretty much as good and evil, with one aspect portrayed as dishonest? Are you able to speak about that bigger affect?
HASEN: So I believe that this is without doubt 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 all the individuals in 2020, Republicans who imagine the false claims that that election was stolen. Properly, for those who 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? Bear in mind the expression, the Roger Stone expression, cease the steal?
MOSLEY: Sure.
HASEN: I imply, we may name it Orwellian, however, you recognize, that is past Orwellian. It’s a propaganda marketing campaign meant to weaponize one get together’s base towards democracy by claiming that their democracy has been taken from them. And, in reality, for those who checked out polling across the 2020 election, it was Republicans greater than Democrats who thought that democracy was in peril as a result of they’d been fed lies by Trump and others. And so I believe it’s corrosive of our democracy, and it’ll take a variety of rebuilding of belief and a variety of safeguards in our system, like these audits of ballots and transparency of processes and safety for voters, so as to get us again to the place we have been earlier than the Trump period began in 2016.
MOSLEY: Why does not the Structure defend 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 have been allowed to vote, and there was no settlement on who may 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 resolve who’s certified to vote. And for president, chances are you’ll keep in mind the Bush v. Gore case that ended the disputed 2000 election.
MOSLEY: The hanging chads, yeah.
HASEN: Proper. So the Supreme Courtroom stated in that case that the individuals haven’t got the correct to vote for president. They solely get that proper as a result of states have given it to them, and states may take it again at any time. So a state legislature may move a regulation that claims, you recognize what? We’re not going to allow you to vote for president anymore on this state. We will resolve 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 Courtroom circumstances that the courtroom determined within the Sixties within the so-called Warren Courtroom period, circumstances that sooner or later this Conservative Supreme Courtroom 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 just imagine we’re getting into one other period of the Civil Rights Motion. There are different civil liberties which might be additionally at stake. What’s going to that appear to be?
HASEN: Properly, I believe it will look one thing just like the Sixties. I believe it will be large public protests. It will imply that there could be the election of people that need change. , the final time the Structure was amended – the final proposed Constitutional modification was in 1971, when there could not be discrimination towards 18 yr olds. , 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 nations have larger 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 may vote was not taken severely. Actually, in 1875, the Supreme Courtroom stated, no, the Structure does not defend girls’s proper to vote, and it took 40 years of organizing so as 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 girls to vote. And so I take into consideration that, that it’ll take a long-term standard motion if we will revitalize this democracy.
MOSLEY: Do you think about our lawmakers?
HASEN: I think about the American individuals that there is sufficient of a dedication to democracy that if our leaders will not step up and really defend 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 regulation and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Mission. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF ANTHONY BRAXTON’S “MAPLE LEAF RAG (WITH MUHAL RICHARD ABRAMS)”)
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Go to our web site phrases of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for additional data.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts could fluctuate. 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 document of NPR’s programming is the audio document.
