Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a redistricting case that centers on the “independent state legislature theory,” which would give state legislatures near-absolute power over federal elections. Nearly 70 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in this critical case, with the vast majority urging the justices to unequivocally reject this radical notion.

Six states put voting-related proposals on the ballot in the midterms. Citizens in most of these places, including Arizona, Michigan, and Connecticut, chose to make voting easier and reject restrictions. Only two states approved measures curtailing voting access. Overall, the results show that when given the chance to weigh in, Americans will choose to protect voting rights.

Federal and local authorities are using social media to investigate individuals and identify threats. There is little evidence that this widespread practice actually improves public safety, and a wealth of research and anecdotal accounts emphasize its harms. The trial of a climate activist highlights how unchecked online surveillance by law enforcement infringes on free speech and privacy.

After the Supreme Court weakened federal protections for juvenile defendants against “cruel and unusual punishments” last year, state courts moved in the opposite direction. High courts in Michigan and North Carolina, for example, ruled that their constitutions provide for more robust Eighth Amendment protections than the U.S. Constitution. These cases show that when federal courts fail to preserve fundamental rights, there are still options at the state level.

One of these routes is amending state constitutions, which is easier to do than adding amendments to the federal constitution. Midterm voters in several states used this flexibility to expand reproductive, labor, and voting rights.