A dizzying news week reminds us what the election is about.

([link removed])

We are united in dismay about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, about the rally attendees who were killed or wounded, and about this latest eruption of violence in the political process. From what we know, the attacker seems to have not had political motives. Rather, he seems all too typical: a young man, possibly troubled, with access to a weapon of war.

As the Brennan Center has written, threats of violence

([link removed])

across the political spectrum have been rising for years. High-profile individuals, from Rep. Steve Scalise to Paul Pelosi to, now, the former president, have been victims. Countless other officials at the national, state, and local levels face threats. And of course, there was the mass violence of January 6. All that is unacceptable in a democracy. Ballots, not bullets, should determine our nation’s direction.

We pause respectfully to reflect on the risks that public officials take in this hyper-violent era. But the news didn’t take a pause — a pair of events quickly reminded us of how much is at stake in the great fight for democracy.

On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, who presides over Trump’s federal prosecution for the mishandling of classified documents and obstruction of justice, declared that the indictment was void because Special Counsel Jack Smith had been unconstitutionally appointed. Together with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling two weeks ago, Cannon’s decision created a zone of accountability-free lawlessness for future chief executives.

This is a truly radical decision. For decades, attorneys general have had the power to name special counsels to investigate politically sensitive matters. The Supreme Court, in the course of granting presidents immunity from legal accountability, took it for granted that Smith’s appointment was lawful. That has been the ruling of the Supreme Court and many, many other courts for decades. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence, said he thought that Smith was illegally appointed.

Still, the Supreme Court, in making its outlandish immunity ruling two weeks ago, sent a strong signal to lower court judges: let your freak flag fly.

The court of appeals should swiftly, unanimously, and unambiguously overturn Cannon’s decision, as it did one of her previous decisions in this case. But who knows? The Federalist Society judges are having a wild rumpus right now.

There’s a party going on in Milwaukee, too, where another advocate for an all-powerful executive is ascendant.

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance is now the Republican Party’s vice presidential nominee. Of the identified finalists for the slot, he was by far the most willing to bend constitutional norms in the service of presidents, and this president. Vance has said he would not have done what Mike Pence did — he would have refused to certify

([link removed])

the 2020 election results. He is a big proponent of the Big Lie, peddling false claims of voter fraud and noncitizen voting.

Vance, author of the memoir Hillbilly Elegy, looks to forge a potent new populism. He has been outspoken in support of antitrust enforcement and other measures that run counter to the typical business–lobbyist agenda of his party. It’s worth remembering, though, that his political rise was bankrolled by one tech billionaire, Peter Thiel, who had sponsored his Senate candidacy as if he were a prize racehorse. Vance’s rapid rise tells the story of the equally rapid collapse of campaign finance laws. (He’s the hillbilly from Silicon Valley.)

Cannon and Vance are complicated personalities, but the great contest underway in this country is not about individual judges, candidates, or even parties, but about ideas — and about the idea of American democracy itself.

I happened to be in Milwaukee for a wedding this past weekend. Visitors arriving at the airport are currently greeted by a huge display: “Heritage welcomes you to the RNC Convention.” So much for Trump’s claims, which I wrote about last week

([link removed])

, that he never heard of Project 2025 or the people at the Heritage Foundation who wrote it.

His dodge reflects something encouraging and a bit surprising. The public has actually heard about Project 2025, a nearly 900-page, dense policy book — a detailed plan for a shift toward authoritarianism. Last week more people googled “Project 2025”

([link removed])

than “Taylor Swift.” This was driven by young people on social media, educating themselves. Politicians have begun to critique it as well.

As the country catches its breath and tries to understand the roots of violence, we’re not going to back down in our own effort to make sure that the threats to democracy are understood and the fight for the country we love continues.


A Wake-Up Call for Congress

Amid decades of dwindling legislative capacity and expertise, Congress has relied on federal agencies to decide how to implement policies addressing highly technical matters, like climate change and public health emergencies. But one of the most alarming rulings of the Supreme Court’s latest term disempowered federal agencies, putting the onus on Congress to effectively grapple with the complex issues that impact Americans’ everyday lives. To do this, Maya Kornberg writes in The Hill, “Congress will have to legislate more specifically and therefore must beef up its technical capacity.” Read more

([link removed])

The Most At-Risk Election Officials

As we saw after the 2020 election, election deniers tend to aim their false claims of voter fraud at cities — especially ones with large Black and Latino populations, such as Philadelphia and Detroit. Beyond fueling unwarranted distrust in the integrity of our elections, these attacks also put a bigger target on the election officials who serve communities of color. A new analysis of the Brennan Center’s annual survey of election officials finds that those who work in districts with large minority populations are disproportionately likely to face threats, harassment, and abuse. “With threats on the rise since 2020, proper election funding is needed now more than ever,” Ruby Edlin and Lawrence Norden write. READ MORE

([link removed])

Guardrails Against Bogus Voter Challenges

Election officials aren’t the only ones caught in the middle of false claims of widespread voter fraud. These lies have spurred citizens to use often unreliable data to aggressively challenge the eligibility of large numbers of voters, raising the risk that eligible voters will be intimidated or disenfranchised. A new Brennan Center explainer details the federal and state legal protections that safeguard voters from unfounded challenges to their eligibility. If enforced, Robyn Sanders and Alice Clapman write, these laws “will protect voters and help election administrators manage challenges while staying focused on the critical task of running free and fair elections.” Read more

([link removed])

Limiting a Dangerous Executive Power

The Insurrection Act was once intended to allow presidents to provide U.S. military support in emergencies in which civilian law enforcement is overwhelmed. But a lack of safeguards could enable presidents to weaponize this authority to trample on people’s civil rights and liberties. Elizabeth Goitein casts light on the dangers of the Insurrection Act, its use by past presidents, and the reforms Congress should enact to prevent abuse. READ MORE

([link removed]



Join us for a live virtual event on this issue on July 25 at 3 p.m. ET. The discussion will be moderated by Goitein and feature lawyer and writer Hawa Allan, Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, and Brennan Center counsel Joseph Nunn. RSVP TODAY

([link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on the implications of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling // GIZMODO

([link removed]

Sean Morales-Doyle on the harms of the new proof-of-citizenship voting bill // VOICE OF AMERICA

([link removed]

Hernandez Stroud on the push for a federal takeover of New York’s Rikers Island jail // GOTHAMIST

([link removed]

Daniel Weiner on the need to update campaign finance rules // WASHINGTON POST

([link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







([link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

([link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed]

([link removed]

([link removed]

([link removed]

([link removed]

([link removed]

([link removed]