Punishing election sabotage is key to keeping our elections safe and secure. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  
Donate
Brennan Center for Justice
 
Alex Brandon/AP Photo
Indicting former President Trump for conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss has significant implications beyond politics. In particular, election officials, who have faced a wave of threats, harassment, and violence amid Trump and his allies' efforts to interfere with results, stand to benefit from the federal and Georgia prosecutions. Enforcing the clear federal and state laws that prohibit election sabotage is crucial to protecting our elections and those who run them.
This month, a federal appeals court struck down Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban for people with felony convictions, deeming the law a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The groundbreaking ruling, which will re-enfranchise tens of thousands of Americans, reflects the national trend of states leaving behind harsh disenfranchisement policies that are at odds with modern societal values. It also illustrates why voting rights advocates must continue to push for reform not just in the courts, but in the court of public opinion, too.
The Department of Defense has long failed in its legal duty to provide lawmakers with information about military activity, which hampers effective congressional oversight. Perhaps unsurprisingly, an internal document obtained by the Brennan Center shows the department has no plans to improve its compliance. In the face of this continued unwillingness to follow the law, Congress must take robust action to improve military transparency.
For decades, presidents have taken religious, racial, and gender diversity into account when appointing justices to the Supreme Court. A new Brennan Center explainer delves into the history of the high court’s membership, starting from George Washington’s original appointees to the milestone appointments of the first Black justices, the first female justices, and even the first justices born outside the United States. Their stories highlight how the Supreme Court has grown more reflective of the American public over time — but its diversity still falls short.
In stark contrast to the federal Constitution, state constitutions are modified on a regular basis. A new State Court Report explainer provides an overview of the various ways legislatures, citizens, conventions, and commissions can amend state constitutions and sheds light on differing approaches to these processes across the 50 states.

 
BRENNAN CENTER ON SOCIAL MEDIA
How much do you know about the financial disclosure rules for the Supreme Court? Take our quiz on Instagram and find out. >>
 

 
Virtual Events
 
Abortion Rights and the Future of State Constitutions
Tuesday, September 19, 6–7 p.m. ET
Join us for a live virtual panel exploring the aftermath of Dobbs and its implications for state courts and constitutions. Panelists include Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court; David Cohen, a reproductive rights scholar at Drexel University; and Alicia Bannon, director of the Brennan Center Judiciary Program and editor in chief of State Court Report. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and Yale Law School will guide a conversation on the role of state courts in adjudicating reproductive rights cases, as well as the future of state constitutionalism. RSVP today.
 
Produced in partnership with the Birnbaum Women's Leadership Center

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Website