I'm honored to be thanked by Sen. Manchin, along with @derektmuller @Nedfoley @jacklgoldsmith and Brad Smith, Michael McConnell, and Bob Bauer, for our work on the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022. @CassSunstein

1. Every election-law expert understands that, no matter what the Court decides about the independent state legislature issue, state legislatures still could not ignore the popular vote and appoint electors after Election Day.

A reminder of why the magnitude of the 14-1 Senate Rules Committee vote is so important: the Electoral Count Reform Act is self-enforcing by Congress. Courts are unlikely to play any role. The breadth of this buy-in makes it all the more likely Congress will honor the Act.

I've joined Twitter in hopes I can bring greater clarity to legal issues I know something about – the law of democracy, powers of Congress and the President, the Supreme Court. On the “independent state legislature theory” and Electoral Count Act reform: electionlawblog.org/?p=13121…

1/n Fascinating decision of NC Supreme Court that requires a bit of unpacking: federal courts held that 28 NC legislators were elected from unconstitutional, racially-gerrrymandered districts. Courts permitted them to retain their seats until next election.

But very few public commentators understand that, including many lawyers who comment publicly on this. This is an example of the misinformation economy. @JoshuaADouglas @beckerdavidj @michaelsozan

As bad as it is for counties in AZ and PA to refuse to certify the vote, I think there's a silver lining: the system is getting a stress test under much less intense circumstances than 2024. Courts will work out some of the procedural issues and protocols for these situations.

From profile of Cissy Marshall, wife of TM: "They moved to Washington ... when LBJ appointed her husband Solicitor General. She was always “careful” to avoid conflicts of interest. “I had to cut out a lot of my friends…because of the cases involved.” bit.ly/3Bw19YL

I had not been aware of this, but a measure on the ballot in Maine would limit to $5000 contributions from individuals and entities to independent expenditure SuperPacs. This is clearly designed to get the Supreme Court to revisit Citizens United and related cases. ballotpedia.org/Maine_2024_b…

If the Court wanted to resolve this case quickly, it could avoid for now resolving all the complex issues about the boundary of any presidential immunity. It could say we assume for purposes of this decision that immunity exists for official acts (though we don't decide that or whether it exists for only some official acts) -- contrary to the DC Circuit. Even so, most of the acts charged in the indictment involve private acts, as the President's lawyer conceded at argument. In addition to the acts already conceded to be private, the Court could also decide now whether any additional acts charged in the indictment similarly involve purely private acts. There is no immunity for any of those acts, even under the President's own theory. The trial could proceed based just on the acts considered personal. But it does not seem the Court is going to do that. It seems inclined to a broader opinion that grapples more generally with the novel questions of the scope of any possible immunity for former presidents from criminal prosecution.

Decision here, democracydocket.com/wp-conte… Hat tip to @DemocracyDocket

Glad to be quoted here, along with Ned Foley, on the legal safeguards in place to prevent efforts to subvert the election outcome, including the role of the Electoral Count Reform Act.

.@AWeissmann misunderstands this theory. First, nearly all the actions DJT took were taken in his private status as a candidate. This is not a sliver of the charges but the vast bulk of them. The only actions arguably "official" were his communications with the DOJ. Second, as the govt argued in response to this line of questioning from Justice Barrett, evidence of even these interactions with DOJ can still come in to help prove intent and motive, even if those actions could not themselves be treated as criminal. Third, the opinion would say we do not need to decide today whether the P has immunity for official acts and if so, what the boundaries are on that immunity. Contrary to AW, this wouldn't create any precedent on the absurd Seal 6 example or anything else. The opinion would say even were we to accept the P's theory, trial can go forward on all the crimes alleged and on nearly all the acts in the indictment. Fourth, this is the only path toward a prompt decision. If the Court instead engages in trying to resolve the broader questions about the exact scope of immunity for official acts, we will not see an opinion for some time. Andrew wants a quick decision, but he has no theory about the legal basis that can plausibly produce that result. As far as I know, his view is that ex-Ps never have any immunity from criminal prosecution. But that's a non-starter. Even the Special Counsel agreed that was not a plausible position (as have most experts on presidential powers). Once you recognize that ex-Ps will have immunity for some official acts, you enter complex terrain in trying to define those boundaries. The quickest path to a decision here is to recognize that most of what DJT is charged with involves his actions as a private candidate, and that questions about the scope of immunity for official acts need not be fully engaged in this case. Marty Lederman, an expert on presidential powers, takes the same position I do here in a longer essay. His essay is here: lawfaremedia.org/article/the…

This is a reminder, particularly for the media: Milwaukee always reports its vote totals much later than most of the rest of WI. That's not just because of its size, but because of its process: it transfers all the absentee ballots to a central location for counting. There will be nothing surprising or unusual about Milwaukee's returns coming in late.

On federal election law (FECA) and the Trump conviction: @CommishSmith argues that the Cohen payments to Daniels would be treated as a "personal expense," rather than a campaign contribution under FECA. Campaign funds could not have been used to pay this. Even if we assume for the moment this is correct, the analysis would still have to take into account the way FEC regulations treat third-party payments of personal expenses. Those regulations treat third-party payments of personal expenses as contributions, which make them subject to the rules regarding contributions. Here's the text of FEC regulation 113.1(g)(6) on third-party payments: "Third party payments. Notwithstanding that the use of funds for a particular expense would be a personal use under this section, payment of that expense by any person other than the candidate or the campaign committee shall be a contribution under subpart B of part 100 to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy." This is from the FEC explanation of the regulation: "Section 113.1(g)(6) sets out Commission policy on payments for personal use expenses by persons other than the candidate or the candidate’s committee. Generally, payments of expenses that would be personal use if made by the candidate or the candidate’s committee will be considered contributions to the candidate if made by a third party." fec.gov/resources/cms-conten… A couple aspects to note here. The regulation does not require coordination between the campaign and the third party. It recognizes a category of election financing that would be personal expenses if done by a campaign, but that are treated as contributions if done by a third party. Also, note that this is a regulation implementing the FECA, not the text of the FECA itself. Thus, even assuming the payments here would be a personal expense if done by the campaign, any full analysis of the FECA issues in the case requires addressing this regulation. @rickhasen

Another way to put this: 37% of Begich voters preferred a Democrat to Palin.

This piece is based on a single fact, followed by a lot of suspicion and speculation. The fact is that Biden received 181,866 more votes in 2020 in PA than Obama received in 2008 (with much higher overall turnout in PA in 2020 than 2008). But as campaigns and political scientists know, anger and fear are great mobilizers for voters. Once DJT was elected, that mobilized anti-Trump voters in subsequent elections. Just compare turnout in the 2018 midterms to the prior midterm in 2014: Over 122 million people voted in 2018, the highest number ever for a midterm election. In 2014, around 83 million votes were cast. 2018, of course, was before the pandemic related changes that were made for the 2020 election. Or look at other states in 2020, compared to 2008. In 2008, Obama got 8.2M votes in CA; in 2020, Biden got 11.1M. It takes little effort to recognize the larger context that explains why Biden received more votes in PA in 2020 than Obama did in 2008.

1/n One of the under-appreciated design defects in the Constitution, in my view, is the 2-year term for the House. With American politics consumed by the mid-terms, this is a good time to explain that view. I first did so in a NYT essay a year ago: nytimes.com/2021/07/21/opini…

I was greatly honored to receive the John Hart Ely memorial prize this weekend for my contributions to election law, from the American Assn. of Law Schools. It’s particularly meaningful to me because of the respect I had for Ely, from whom I took Conflicts of Law...

From the time of the Court's creation until roughly 1970, the average tenure for a Justice was 15 years. Since then, the average tenure for those who have left the Court is 26 years. An 18-year term is longer than the average Justice served until the 1970s. nitter.app/BradMossEsq/status/181…

As unexciting as this sounds, this simple change is enormously important to avoid a repeat of 2020 in a key swing state.

There was also little (maybe no) effort from EK, SS, and KBJ to press the Court to take a narrow approach to the case and focus just on the facts before them. They seemed just as inclined as other Justices to view the case as requiring broad engagement with a general framework for addressing the scope of any potential immunity -- again, as a general matter involving facts and contexts far removed from the ones in this specific case.

The Court has provided some clarity about the independent state legislature issue: state constitutions continue to bind state legis. But it has also left a vague standard hanging over the 2024 elections. @adamliptak @scotusreporter @JessBravin

4/n NC Supreme Court held that the legislature might not have had the power to propose these particular amendments, due to the critical role legislative votes to propose the amendments from members in unconstitutional districts had played. Thus: the amendments might be invalid.

I commented to @DemocracyDocket on the reasons I hope Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature case, does not become moot: “There’s no question that the issue is going to be raised in many contexts involving federal elections in the 2024 cycle...

7/n The court distinguished constitutional measures that adopt particular policies from those that "alter the way the people’s sovereign power is allocated, channeled, and exercised by the people’s representatives." Court: The latter uniquely threaten democratic self-rule

The Court will surely reject this claim -- as it already did many decades ago -- but until the Court addresses the ISL theory, we are going to see more of this type of thing.

That odd feeling when your academic work ends up on @LastWeekTonight with John Oliver.

The Court recognized some, vague constraint on state courts going "too far" (my words) when they interpret state elections laws or the state constn. But we don't even have a ruling on whether the NC court violated this standard. The issue is going to be litigated in 2024..

While RCV is not responsible for this bipartisan coalition, which has been a feature of AK politics in other years, it's worth noting that the incoming majority leader of the Senate did only win, it seems, due to RCV. @ericmbudd

6/n But court concluded constitutional amendments are different: they change fundamental law. BUT, the court held, not even all constitutional amendments from an unconstitutionally constituted legislature are potentially invalid.

This Politico story on Jan. 6, 2025 makes the mistake -- which we are going to see over and over -- of asserting that if Congress throws out the votes from a state, no candidate might achieve the 270 votes necessary to be elected. If Congress refuses to count a state's vote, the total number of electoral votes cast is reduced accordingly and a majority no longer would require 270 votes, but a majority of whatever the new dominator would be (there's one wrinkle to this, but not worth going into here) politico.com/news/2024/09/17…: — "That Johnson could muster enough Republicans to object to certain contested slates of electors — and, if the GOP also holds the Senate, possibly gather the votes to throw those slates out. If neither candidate receives 270 electoral votes, the House could have authority under the 12th Amendment to choose the winner."

2/n NC legislature can propose constitutional amendments with 60% support, which voters then vote on. In waning days of the legislative session, legislature voted to endorse six constitutional amendments.

Prof. Michael McConnell and I debate independent state legislature theory and Electoral Count Act reform on National Constitution Center podcast. constitutioncenter.org/inter… Michael's views on ISL likely to reflect starting intuitions of several, maybe majority, of Justices.

5/n What about legislation that had been enacted by this legislative body over the prior two years? The court held that this legislation is still valid, based on something called the "de facto" officer doctrine. That's a typical result.

9/n (3) whether the provisions involve "policy choices that intentionally discriminate against a particular category of citizens who were also discriminated against in the drawing of the districts from which the legislators who initiated the amendment process were elected."

3/n The two amendments at issue in this case required the support of those elected from these unconstitutional districts to pass. (1) a Voter ID amendment and (2) an amendment capping taxes. Voters passed both.

Republicans use ranked-choice voting to elect their leader (not technically RCV, but sequential rounds of voting in which bottom candidate is eliminated -- essentially a form of RCV). Why? Because they want a leader who comes closest to being the true preference of a majority of the caucus, rather than the favorite of a faction of the party. A plurality-winner rule could empower a factional leader. @Nedfoley @LarryDiamond

in the midst of those elections until we get a clear definition of the boundaries on the federal constraint this decision recognizes on state court decisionmaking. @jedshug

8/n More specifically, the court sent the case back to the trial court to apply three main factors to these two amendments: (1) the factor I just noted; (2) whether the relevant legislators' votes were potentially decisive (which is a clear yes here, as the court says).

10/n I'm not aware of any court that has issued a comparable decision. Is this case likely to go to the US Supreme Court? First, there's a procedural issue: the Court typically only takes cases after a final judgment, which is absent here. This case is back in the trial court.

We could end up seeing a Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of an independent Federal Reserve

I think Lopez Bright is going to be more important in terms of what it signals to lower courts, rather than in terms of a new doctrinal command it inevitably imposes. That is, many Step 2 Chevron cases could now instead be decided as cases of congressional delegation to agencies. As CJ Roberts says, “In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute’s meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion.” Chevron, of course, presumed this was the case, if the agency's interp. was reasonable. Now the courts will have to make this judgment statute by statute without any presumption. But for many regulatory statutes, courts could still conclude Congress delegated discretion. But lower courts are going to get the message that the Court wants them to police agency action more aggressively. So they will be more reluctant to conclude than previously that a statute does indeed delegate "a degree of discretion" to agencies. That atmospheric shift is going to be as important as the formal doctrinal shift. @nicholas_bagley @CassSunstein

14/n Not saying the Court would or should take the case. But if an effort is made to go to the Court, I would expect that to be the basis. BTW, this case does not implicate the independent state legislature theory: provisions do not apply to federal elections.

1. The Alaska Supreme Court issued its written opinion yesterday upholding the voter-initiated Top-4 primary and ranked-choice voting general election. This reform challenged Top-4 as (1) violating the political parties' constitutional rights of association and ...

Glad to see and be quoted in this Washington Post piece from @JRubinBlogger that tries to calm anxieties about the risks of partisan actors corrupting the election process. washingtonpost.com/opinions/…

12/n But what would the substantive claims be a cert. petition would raise? The dissent suggested the court's decision violated the "republican form of government clause." But long-established doctrine makes that non-justiciable, ie, courts would dismiss that claim.

13/n Most likely, petitioners would invoke federal constitutional protections for the right to vote. Argument would be that voters who voted for that state legislature were denied the proper full effect of their vote if legislature cannot exercise all its normal powers.

There's been some confusion in the reporting on the new rule the GA Election Bd. adopted yesterday. It's a hand count of the total number of ballots cast, not a hand count of the actual votes. Still a bad policy, will delay the count by about 4 hours, could introduce doubt and confusion. For the facts see this from the top election official in Maricopa County: nitter.app/stephen_richer/status/…

First, it will depend on which specific crime or crimes DOJ would indict and the elements of that crime. If the crime is obstruction, it would seem that would have taken place only in FL. Other crimes might have a sufficient nexus to DC.

The "major questions doctrine" inside the executive branch: It seems likely in the new administration that the major questions doctrine is going to be used as an offensive weapon within the executive branch as a way to undo past regulations. Repeal would be based purely on a legal argument: that the agency had unlawfully regulated in an area of "major questions" to which it had not been delegated authority. In a sense, this would be retroactive application of the majority questions doctrine, but within the executive branch. In theory, this basis for repeal would make it easier for an agency to satisfy the APA and the State Farm requirements for an agency's rescission of a prior regulation. The agency would not have to develop a factual foundation justifying its change of position. The argument would be the agency never had the authority in the first place to adopt the regulation. Assuming a plaintiff with standing to challenge repeal, much will then depend on how the courts address the agency's assertion of a major questions violation. @jadler1969 @chris_j_walker @CassSunstein

The most amazing fact about the Webb Telescope, to me: it can see back through 95% of all time that has happened. Try to wrap your mind around that.

I want to make this point again about today's immunity argument. The Court could have decided to approach the issues narrowly, with a focus on the specific acts alleged in the indictment and how any theory of immunity might apply to them. That approach would likely produce a decision sooner. Or the Court could have -- as it did -- attempt to think through the full range of issues to attempt to generate a broad set of principles on the scope of immunity generally. I didn't see any difference between the liberal and conservative Justices on this. All took the second path. A Justice who thought it was urgent to try to issue a decision quickly would have pushed hard on that first path. I didn't see anyone doing that. @steve_vladeck @rgoodlaw @jedshug

11/n Second, the case is sui generis. The Court typically takes cases only when they present some recurring problem of national importance or a conflict in the lower courts.

Sauer is now conceding in response to questions from ABC that most of the acts for which DJT was indicted are PRIVATE ACTS -- meaning a concession that, whatever the scope of any immunity, it does not apply to these acts. He just conceded 90% of the case, in my view. @jedshug @rickhasen

I've laid out a similar approach, with a bit more legal detail.

Based on conversations with people doing voter-protection work, we are so far not seeing significant problems with poll workers, poll watchers, challenges to voters, or similar problems at polling places. A few isolated incidents. Still the end of the day rush to get through.

1. If Congress passes the Electoral Count Reform Act, it would deal with this risk. A state or federal court would order the legally proper certificate to be issued. If the Gov. still refused, the valid electors would submit their votes accompanied by the court order.

It's unfortunate we're in a moment in which this is happening. But better to address now when the stakes are not as high as they might be down the road. @derektmuller @Nedfoley @rickhasen

Also, some of the strongest constitutional courts, known for their independence, in other major democracies not only have term limits, but ones shorter that 18 years. The German court, eg, has 12-year non-renewable terms and mandatory retirement at 68 as well.

Courts will also develop precedents. County election officials will also learn the consequences of failing to carry out their legal duties, and the public will see their are mechanisms in place for dealing with these types of actions.

If you want to read more about the 1890 MS disenfranchising convention, and the wave of similar measures that then quickly followed in most of the South, see my article "Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon:" scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/…

I'm honored to be part of this important ABA Task Force. @nyulaw

One of the strongest arguments for fixed terms on the Court is that they would eliminate (1) strategic retirements and non-retirements; (2) perceptions that Justices are retiring or not for strategic reasons; and (3) political pressures for Justices to retire strategically.

So called "red-lines" against working with more extreme parties on the right are quickly collapsing as those parties gain more electoral support in PR systems.

If you want to read a gripping account of the confirmation process for Thurgood Marshall, for whom I had the honor to clerk, I strongly encourage Will Haygood's book, Showdown. You'll see all the tactics segregationist Southern Senators used to try to block TM's confirmation.

The procedural posture of Moore v. Harper remains bizarre, as the Supreme Court asks the parties to advise it concerning how the recent NC Supreme Court's actions affect the case that's been pending before the Supreme Court for 5 months since argument. @lawrencehurley

I co-taught a reading group this fall for 1st year law students with @davidshor, and I wanted to explain my reasons for doing so -- partly to encourage other public-law professors to consider similar efforts.

Read this engaging essay by @JohnFabianWitt on L. Kalman's new book on FDR's Court-packing plan. Contrary to others, Kalman argues that the plan was a savvy political move that protected the New Deal's achievements. bit.ly/3pdcQkl

A lot of people are going to want to read this.

In Brazil, key figures in Congress, including Bolsonaro supporters, immediately came out and recognized legitimacy of Lula's election. Includes the Senate President and leader of the House. This is how political leadership, across parties, sustains the legitimacy of elections.

This Votebeat story provides a sense of the troubling developments emerging with poll observers going beyond their legitimate role and interfering with the election process. mailchi.mp/votebeat.org/poll…

In other words, the bipartisan Senate coalition chose as its leader someone who would not have been elected but for RCV. @Nedfoley @LarryDiamond

1. The core of the VRA plaintiffs case, in a sentence, is that when voting is racially polarized, Sec. 2 imposes an affirmative obligation to create reasonably compact (or reasonably configured) districts,if possible,that provide a reasonable ability to elect for minority voters

In the NYT, I've published an essay on the major political reforms on the ballot in a number of states. "And while nearly all attention is fixated on the presidential race, Americans in a number of states will also be voting on some of the most significant sets of political reforms in decades. Taken together, these ballot measures — in red, blue and purple states — constitute a major referendum on whether we can reduce political extremism through institutional change." nytimes.com/2024/11/01/opini… @baseballot @uniteamerica @CassSunstein @nyulaw @nytimes @LarryDiamond @protctdemocracy @rgoodlaw

2/n The NYT gave the piece an appropriate title: "In Nearly All Other Democracies, This Is Not Normal" Here are some of the key points. One of the most difficult aspects of designing democratic institutions is how to give governments incentives to act for the long-term.

1. A thread. There's been a lot of recent interest in reform circles, led by @leedrutman, in urging that we adopt a system of proportional representation for the US House. The argument is that a multi-party House is the solution to our era of tribalized politics and dissatisfaction with Congress.

1. The main examples the Sotomayor concurrence #SCOTUS wants to leave open appear to involve challenges to a President's lawful right to the office AFTER he has been elected -- eg, a criminal prosecution in which the defense is the P. does not lawfully hold the office.

This is a major, major decision from the state court. From the press release -- have not seen the opinion -- it seems the decision might have been based wholly on state law grounds. If so, no basis for US Supreme Court review once case finishes in state court system.

Biden isn't defying the Court in any sense. Defying the Ct is refusing to comply with a Ct order, or, as in Lincoln's case, refusing to extend the principles of a case outside that case. Biden is simply arguing that a difft federal statute, with different procedures and...

There's an important difference in the legal situation in OH v. NY. The OH constitutional amdt that banned partisan GM expressly prohibited the courts from drawing the districts. In NY, after the Ds did defy the courts -- (see next tweet)

Thanks to my colleague, @ProfMMurray, and for introducing me to the word "Tweeps."

3/n The two-year term for House members does exactly the opposite. In nearly all other democracies, parliaments are in power for four to five years.

The constant fund-raising and positioning of House members for the next election, the effort to fend of primary challengers, the inability of governments to have sustained support for an agenda, all owe a lot to the original decision for the exceptionally short 2-year H. term

Further, detailed confirmation of this perspective in my NYT essay: nytimes.com/2023/01/05/opini…

I'm honored to be part of the new ABA Task Force on American Democracy, co-chaired by Judge Michael Luttig and Jeh Johnson. americanbar.org/groups/leade…

they refused to submit a new map when given opportunity after courts struck down the first map -- then the courts appointed a special master to redistrict the state. OH courts did not have that option -- so the legislature could just wait the courts out.

Akhil Amar's podcast on the DJT disqualification issues under the 14th Amendment discusses the views of various scholars. If you want spice, he calls @samuelmoyn's views "howlingly wrong." He devotes 15 minutes to my interview in the New Yorker at 23.15. akhilamar.com/podcast-2/

DNC: Superdelegates can only vote in round two. Superdelegates: Okay, we'll vote in round zero. @LarryDiamond @rickhasen @leedrutman @Nedfoley

On the underlying structural changes in democracy that contribute to the R party's struggle over choosing a Speaker, see my latest NYT essay: nytimes.com/2023/01/05/opini…

This New Yorker article has an anonymous law professor speculating about the motivations behind the scholarship and actions of another law professor. I don't know that I've ever seen that before. I wonder what other law profs think of the ethics of that electionlawblog.org/?p=13665…

Of all the democracy reforms, this is the one that makes the most difference in increasing participation rates. Yet it gets less attention. Of registered voters, over 90% vote. Low overall rates of voting among eligible voters are due to low registration rates.

The decision of the Georgia Superior Court that certification is mandatory under GA law includes this description of the proper forum in which any challenges to the integrity of an election should be raised: "This does not leave the superintendent (or board member) without recourse or the means to voice substantive concerns about an election outcome. The Election Code has a tested mechanism for addressing alleged fraud and abuse: election contests. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522. Election contests arise after the ministerial act of certification. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a). They may be brought by a losing candidate or by any aggrieved elector (voter) -- which includes a superintendent (assuming she voted). O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521. Importantly, election contests occur in open court, under the watchful eye of a judge and the public. The claims of fraud from one side are tested by the opposing side in that open court -- rather than being silently “adjudicated” by a superintendent outside the public space, resulting in votes being excluded from the final count without due process being afforded those electors." ajc.com/politics/a-judge-rul…

4/n Political scientists view voting as primarily the voters’ retrospective judgment on how well a government has performed. Four to five years provides plausible time for that.

Congress has passed a statute that bars convicted insurrectionists from holding federal office. The criminal statute is broader than Sec. 3 of the 14th A. No requirement of having taken a prior oath. Moreover, disqualification appears mandatory after conviction:

Justices can vote in a case even if they are not present for oral argument. When I clerked at the Court in 1984-85, Justice Powell was gone for about two months. When he returned, he voted on the cases for which he had missed the argument. A Justice could now also listen to a recording of the oral argument, if they chose. I think practices vary among Justices as to whether they vote in cases for which they could not attend argument.@steve_vladeck

1. I've posted this draft essay titled "The Neglected Value of Effective Government." I'll do a thread to provide the abstract. It builds on the work of Frances Lee, @nicholas_bagley David Pozen, among others. A first draft, comments welcome. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…

6/n In the U.S., members of Congress face two elections every two years. Moreover, in most democracies, candidates do not have to raise their own funds to run; governments provide public financing to the political parties.

7/n The two-year term, combined with primary elections and the constant need to raise funds individually, generates exceptional turbulence and short-term focus in our politics. I

12/n Urging a three-year term, Madison argued annual elections had produced “instability” in the states. Initially, the Convention approved a three-year term. But later, the Convention compromised on two years.

3. I expect this strong, extensive opinion to become a major precedent for other state courts facing the same issue or issues. I was pleased to defend the AK system in an amicus brief with @GMikeParsons, based on our article, "The Legality of RCV" bit.ly/3SrIjaW