TERRY GROSS, HOST:
That is FRESH AIR. I am Terry Gross. Election season is underway, with primaries right this moment in Texas, North Carolina and Arkansas. In the meantime, President Trump is pushing Congress to move laws – the SAVE Act – that might change how each American citizen registers to vote and votes. Predictions are that hundreds of thousands of Americans could be unable to fill the ID necessities. It could trigger chaos on the polls, make it chaotic for counties and states overseeing elections and presumably make it difficult to decipher who actually received. However Congress appears unwilling to move that, so President Trump is threatening to subject an government order that might do all that and extra.
My visitor, Rick Hasen, is an skilled in election regulation. He based the favored Election Regulation Weblog. He is a professor of regulation and political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge at UCLA College of Regulation and the writer of quite a few books, together with “A Actual Proper To Vote: How A Constitutional Modification Can Safeguard American Democracy” and the forthcoming e book, “Unbent Arc: The Rise And Decline Of American Democracy 1964-2024.”
Rick Hasen, welcome again to FRESH AIR. I need to begin by expressing my condolences. I do know your mom died in late February, a few week in the past, and I am very sorry.
RICK HASEN: Thanks.
GROSS: I might like to speak with you in regards to the government order or orders that President Trump is threatening to signal. One among them – this story was damaged by The Washington Submit final week, and it has to do with a conspiracy idea. Would you describe the conspiracy idea?
HASEN: Properly, there are a variety of conspiracy theories and a form of complete election denial advanced that is floating on the market – individuals who consider that there was, or declare that they consider that there was interference within the 2020 election and the 2024 election by numerous overseas entities, together with China and Iran. And the thought could be that Donald Trump would use his powers to guard the nationwide safety of the USA by imposing a variety of numerous restrictions on how individuals register to vote, how individuals vote, and the way states tabulate. That’s how they depend the votes.
GROSS: So are you able to be extra particular about how this government order, which we’ll clarify in a minute, ties in with this conspiracy idea about overseas interference in 2020 and 2024, leaving out, by the best way, Russia, which actually did attempt to intervene and which did have bots and stuff that have been interfering with actuality, with reality?
HASEN: Proper, so, you recognize, there’s totally different sorts of interference which have been alleged. You are referring again to what occurred in 2016, when the Russian authorities had a form of affect operation to attempt to sway public opinion by means of numerous impersonation and false statements and issues that have been posted on social media. Individuals debate how a lot of an impact that had, however that was attempting to form of hack the minds of the American individuals. It wasn’t really hacking voting machines – some allegations that the Russians had probed some voter registration databases to not actually do something, however possibly simply to point out that they have been attempting to have some form of interference, however there’s been no proof of any modifications in votes, modifications in voter registration databases or the rest.
Identical factor in 2020. There have been allegations that Russia and China and Iran tried to do affect operations, tried to get Individuals to combat one another, get us to be extra polarized, to affect who may be voted, to undermine individuals’s confidence within the integrity of the elections, however once more, nothing that confirmed precise interference with voting equipment or tabulation. And but these conspiracy theories declare that there is one thing mistaken with the voting machines.
This can be why Tulsi Gabbard, the director of nationwide intelligence, was reported in Puerto Rico taking a look at voting machines again, I believe it was, in January, why maybe the FBI was seizing ballots and different information from Fulton County, Georgia, the place Trump had claimed within the 2020 election that there was interference that led to Joe Biden’s victory within the state of Georgia. None of that is, after all, true, and it has been investigated. Nevertheless it does appear to probably function a background for pretextually claiming overseas interference as a foundation for Trump to attempt to intervene with how elections are being run.
GROSS: So inform us extra about what’s on this doc that The Washington Submit wrote about final week.
HASEN: So this doc was a doc not ready by anybody within the administration, however ready by a gaggle of election deniers, individuals who have lengthy claimed that there could possibly be some form of nationwide safety purpose for messing with elections. And what this government order that was drafted by these activists purports to do is to assert that this menace of overseas interference would give the president huge powers over elections to vary every little thing from how individuals register to vote, what paperwork they would wish to show to register to vote, whether or not they may register to vote on-line. It could ban principally all technique of registering to vote besides those who could be in particular person or by mail, and it could require the manufacturing of documentary proof of citizenship.
And let me clarify what that’s as a result of that is totally different than voter ID. So voter ID – you go to the polls, possibly you are going to take out your driver’s license or one thing like that. That is totally different. That is as a way to register to vote, you would need to present proof that you are a citizen of the USA, which principally consists of both a passport or your beginning certificates or your naturalization certificates. Should you’ve modified your identify, for instance, since you acquired married, you’d even have to supply proof of your identify change. These should not the form of paperwork that folks have easy accessibility to. This could be an enormous obstacle to individuals voting. It could basically require everybody to re-register to vote. It could change…
GROSS: So that you’d have to begin from scratch. Even for those who voted for many years, you’d nonetheless should show your citizenship with these paperwork. And getting these paperwork generally requires, you recognize, writing to town and, you recognize, asking for a duplicate of it.
HASEN: And paying for it, as effectively.
GROSS: And paying for it, proper.
HASEN: All the things I am telling you about this – what’s on this draft government order that these activists have provide you with is meant to be carried out in time for the 2026 elections. So it is actually an not possible job if that is really what will get produced. And I am form of skeptical that this doc could be the chief order, however it does form of give us a window into the pondering of those conspiracy theorists. So they alter voter registration. They might change the necessities for identification on the polling locations, imposing a nationwide system for that. They might require states to match the voter registration with federal databases to attempt to determine who’s a citizen. We do not have a great database of who’s an American citizen.
They might change the principles for the way ballots needed to be tabulated. They might change the timetable for the receipt of ballots by mail. They might get rid of most absentee balloting. After which they might require all lawsuits to be introduced in federal courtroom reasonably than in state courts. It could be, basically, a federal takeover of elections, making registration and voting far more troublesome on a timeframe that might be not possible to do in time for the 2026 elections.
GROSS: Is there something constitutional about any of this?
HASEN: We have got to go to the Structure. The Structure has a provision. It is in Article 1 of the Structure, which is the half that offers with Congress’ powers. It is in Article 1, Part 4, and it principally says that states can set the time, place and method for operating elections, topic to Congress passing legal guidelines that override these guidelines for congressional elections. So for instance, Congress has handed legal guidelines that say that while you elect members of Congress, it’s important to do it from single-member districts. Should you’ve acquired a state with 10 representatives, you may’t have everybody elect all 10. It’s a must to draw 10 equally sized districts. So Congress has that energy, however it’s an influence to move legal guidelines that regulate how federal elections are performed.
What’s within the Structure is about states and Congress. There may be nothing in regards to the president. And, in truth, there have been a variety of lawsuits over Trump’s earlier government order from again in final August, when he tried to mess with that federal kind for the way individuals can register to vote in congressional elections. There have been – have been a variety of lawsuits the place the courts have mentioned the president has no position to play within the conduct of federal elections. And so simply out of the gate, the concept the president may unilaterally do that by means of an government order, some form of royal edict that modifications how our elections are run, that is a nonstarter so far as the Structure goes.
GROSS: So if Trump points the same government order, to ensure that that to not go into impact, it must undergo the courts, which is a gradual system. And it – then it turns into a query of is there a keep that is placed on that government order, or does it undergo after which possibly get rescinded? And, I imply, I can think about such chaos simply within the courtroom system.
HASEN: Properly, so we have now a little bit little bit of expertise with the sooner Trump government order, which is the one which was issued in August that, amongst different issues, would make it tougher for individuals to register to vote utilizing this federal kind for voter registration that require individuals to supply that documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. And what we all know is that a number of courts have issued preliminary injunctions. So these are orders earlier than the case has been totally adjudicated that say, within the meantime, whereas this case is pending, your guidelines, your government order is placed on maintain.
So an government order isn’t a regulation. It is an – it is principally the president directing elements of the federal authorities to do sure issues. And people sure issues that Trump tried to direct totally different federal officers to do – and in addition to direct states to do, which he has no energy to do by means of an government order – these have been placed on maintain pending a full trial. And we have now had on numerous features of this government order full trials, and we acquired considered one of our first opinions again in early February from a federal district courtroom in Washington, D.C., that completely stopped these items.
GROSS: So let me say, then, that election deniers need to completely remake the election system. Let’s take a look at who a few of them have been as a result of there was additionally a gathering – a latest assembly – that was convened by Michael Flynn, who was President Trump’s first and really temporary nationwide safety adviser. And he is been accused of commiserating with Russians, proper?
HASEN: Certain. I imply, there’s simply – there’s a complete constellation of individuals. These have been individuals who I believe acquired activated within the aftermath of the 2020 election. That was the election that was performed throughout COVID. That is the election that Biden beat Trump. Trump filed 60-something lawsuits attempting to overturn the outcomes. It led to the January 6 riot. I am simply attempting to convey listeners again to that point. That is the place the conspiracy theories actually blossomed. And the individuals have not stopped since then, they usually’ve organized they usually’ve claimed that fraud is rife in elections. All of their claims have been debunked.
There isn’t a foundation – it is vital to say this, I believe. There isn’t a foundation to consider that there’s – was both overseas or home interference that might have modified the outcomes of the 2020 elections in any state, a lot much less in sufficient states to swing the Electoral School. These are people who find themselves authoritarian and who’re attempting to have the president seize extra energy. That is about attempting to vary our elections in order that they may not be democratic and we’d not have the form of free and honest elections that we’d like as a way to proceed to have the form of democracy that is been promised to us, you recognize, for the reason that passage of the Structure.
GROSS: Properly, let me reintroduce you. Should you’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is Richard Hasen. He teaches regulation and political science at UCLA, the place he additionally directs the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge, and he is the founding father of the favored Election Regulation Weblog. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF AVISHAI COHEN SONG, “GBEDE TEMIN”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to my interview with UCLA regulation and political science professor Richard Hasen. He directs the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge and is the founding father of the favored Election Regulation Weblog. We recorded our interview yesterday.
What would it not imply to nationalize the elections? And Trump has mentioned he’d like to do this.
HASEN: He did say that, however he additionally mentioned that there have been 15 locations the place we have to take over elections. Not clear precisely what he means by that. I believe we talked about this after we mentioned my 2012 e book “The Voting Wars” – that the majority different superior democracies have nationwide nonpartisan election administration. So for those who go to Canada or Germany or Australia, they’ve a civil service physique that runs elections. There’s quite a bit to be mentioned for that. And again in that e book, I advocated for that to attempt to rationalize our elections in order that the voting equipment could be uniform, we would have uniform guidelines, it could be straightforward to vote and we would have all types of safeguards. However I’ve now recanted that as a result of I believe American democracy is simply too weak.
What we have seen with the Trump administration is that Donald Trump is attempting to make use of each energy at his disposal to direct the federal authorities to do what he desires, whatever the safeguards which can be in-built. And so I believe American democracy couldn’t deal with federalizing or nationalizing elections as a result of it could increase the potential to pay attention energy within the arms of a tyrannical president.
GROSS: What do you assume the percentages are that President Trump would subject the form of government order that we’re speaking about?
HASEN: I believe there is a good probability that one other government order comes out on voting. Trump has mentioned on a number of instances he will do it. He had a submit on his Reality Social media web site that mentioned that we’ll have voter ID on this nation whether or not Congress passes the SAVE Act or not. So he will do one thing, however the government order may be only for present. He may know, as he does with some issues that he does, that the courts are going to cease him.
However that is only one lever amongst many who Trump may attempt to use to intervene with the 2026 elections. Let me speak about some others. One is what we noticed in Georgia lately, with the FBI coming in and seizing ballots. Now, these ballots have been seized for a previous election – the 2020 election. What would occur if the FBI will get some decide to signal a search warrant and tries to grab ballots in an election that has not been referred to as but? Then we would be breaking the chain of custody and it could be not possible to know if ballots have been added or modified or taken out of account. It could basically nullify an election. In order that’s one factor I am frightened about. I am frightened about him – yeah.
GROSS: Can I cease you there?
HASEN: Certain.
GROSS: So in an try to guard the integrity of the election, they might be ruining it by confiscating the votes.
HASEN: Yeah. And I believe we should always take a step again right here and acknowledge that the best menace to free and honest elections in 2026 is interference from the federal authorities. And that is an astonishing factor to say when it has been the federal authorities – for those who assume again to the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it was the federal authorities that helped defend free and honest elections. And now we have to fear about how the federal authorities may intervene with state processes for operating elections and for tabulating the ballots.
GROSS: Properly, I believe one other potential means of interfering could be to declare voting machines vital infrastructure – I believe they’ve already been declared that – and use that as a possibility to confiscate voting machines?
HASEN: So effectively earlier than Trump, after we noticed tried interference from overseas international locations, together with Russia, the Division of Homeland Safety declared our voting programs a part of vital infrastructure. That was completely applicable to do as a result of we have to have that safety. And till the second Trump administration, there was a federal company referred to as CISA that was working with state and native election officers to guarantee that voting machines weren’t going to be hacked, there was not going to be some form of interference with how elections have been going to be run.
Sadly, the Trump administration now has taken CISA and brought – form of taken it out of the enterprise of defending elections, leaving state and native officers on their very own. However the concept the voting system has been declared vital infrastructure may function a pretext for Trump to attempt to intervene with voting machines or the tabulation of ballots within the 2026 midterm elections.
GROSS: So what else may President Trump do with an government order?
HASEN: Properly, he may probably ship federal troops into polling areas. When the president’s spokesperson was requested about this, she basically mentioned there have been no plans to take action, however there was no unequivocal, after all we’d preserve the federal troops away from polling locations. Truly, I believe that it is actually laborious to ship troops in, and that might get some form of public response. If you are going to attempt to mess with an election, it is a lot simpler to mess with it on the again finish when votes are being tabulated than on the entrance finish when persons are voting. Though I believe speaking in regards to the potential for troops to be within the streets throughout election season, that itself is a means of demobilizing the voters.
I imply, take into consideration this. There are various people who find themselves on the cusp. Extra individuals vote in presidential elections than congressional elections. Presidential elections get essentially the most public consideration. Individuals are deciding, ought to I keep house? Ought to I vote? In the event that they assume that they may be hassled or there may be issues on the polling place, they could simply keep away. And it may not simply be Democrats who keep away. It may be these Trump voters. You recognize, Trump appealed to lots of these rare voters, voters who haven’t got an extended historical past of voting. This can be in some methods very self-defeating, all of this speak about interfering with the elections. It should trigger some individuals to not present up on the polling place.
GROSS: Properly, we have now to take one other quick break right here. Should you’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is Richard Hasen. He teaches regulation and political science at UCLA, the place he is the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge. He is additionally the founding father of the Election Regulation Weblog. We’ll be proper again. I am Terry Gross, and that is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF ALLEN TOUSSAINT’S “BLUE DRAG”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. I am Terry Gross. Let’s get again to the interview I recorded yesterday with Richard Hasen. He is a professor of regulation and political science at UCLA, the place he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge. He is additionally the founding father of the Election Regulation Weblog and has authored quite a few books, together with “A Actual Proper To Vote: How A Constitutional Modification Can Safeguard American Democracy,” and he is at the moment engaged on a e book in regards to the rise and decline of American democracy from 1964 to 2024. We’re speaking in regards to the strikes that the Trump administration has made, or is attempting to make, relating to elections, voting and midterms. We recorded our interview yesterday.
One thing I do not perceive each in regards to the SAVE Act, which has stalled within the Senate, and this speak of government orders – it is going to be as laborious for Republicans to register and vote as it is going to be for Democrats. Some individuals say it would make it tougher as a result of there’s extra Republicans in rural areas that might have hassle attending to an official election place the place you may show your citizenship and, subsequently, register. So what’s in it for Republicans? What’s in it for conspiracy theorists to advocate for modifications in election regulation that might make it troublesome for Republicans in addition to Democrats?
HASEN: I believe that each Republicans and, to some extent, Democrats are caught in a mindset that’s in all probability outdated, which is that for those who make voting and registration tougher, it’s going to assist the Republican Celebration. You recognize, 20 years in the past, we would say that the Republican Celebration was made up of whiter, older, extra prosperous voters. These are individuals who are likely to reside in the identical place, who are typically longtime registrants in the identical place as a way to vote. And younger individuals, individuals of shade, individuals who transfer quite a bit, poor individuals – extra prone to be Democrats, and, subsequently, they’re those who’re almost certainly to be caught up in new modifications in voter registration and voting.
However instances have modified, and the coalitions of the events have modified. It was that in midterm elections it was Republicans who turned out extra as a result of they have been the extra prosperous, college-educated white individuals. Now, lots of these individuals have moved over to the Democratic Celebration, and so it’s not in any respect clear that if the SAVE Act handed or if Donald Trump have been capable of do a few of these new restrictions by government order that it could really inure to the good thing about the Republican Celebration.
I believe extra seemingly, the pondering of those that’ve really thought it by means of and who’ve observed this demographic change is that this is able to be half and parcel of this sort of long-term push to assert that there is large fraud in elections to overturn the outcomes of democratically performed elections. This may be the explanation, too, why the Justice Division has sued in I consider it is 24 states now to attempt to accumulate unredacted voter registration data to create some form of large database which they might then use as a pretext to assert that there is lots of fraud in how American elections are performed.
GROSS: How a lot real fraud is there actually?
HASEN: So fraud is extraordinarily uncommon. Let’s simply take the case of noncitizen voting. In 2016, Donald Trump claimed that there have been 3 million noncitizens who voted within the 2016 election. That was coincidentally the quantity by which Hillary Clinton beat him within the fashionable vote. There have been investigations all around the nation on the lookout for what number of noncitizens really voted within the election. There weren’t 3 million or 300,000 or 30,000 or 3,000 or 300. There have been about 30 circumstances of potential noncitizen voting in the USA – a tiny, tiny share. And it is unsurprising about that as a result of for those who’re a noncitizen and also you vote, you are committing a felony. You could possibly be deported. You could possibly face felony penalties. You would need to have so many individuals voting in a presidential election to sway it that, you recognize, you’d have this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of individuals voting who’re ineligible and nobody would learn about it, I imply, it is simply ludicrous.
Identical factor with voter impersonation fraud – somebody goes to the polls claiming to be another person. We will depend in all probability on one hand the variety of confirmed circumstances of impersonation voter fraud within the final election. I imply, these items are occurring on a really small foundation. In some small elections, particularly in locations the place there may be a media desert – not newspapers or others watching to see what is going on on – we have now seen some election fraud. We’ve got some examples of that in Paterson, New Jersey, in a metropolis election in Bridgeport, Connecticut. There have been locations. These are typically not fraud actions dedicated by voters, however as a substitute by elected officers and election officers who’re attempting to intervene with the elections.
GROSS: And while you evaluate the variety of real fraudulent votes to the variety of people who find themselves disenfranchised by latest voting legal guidelines, who comes out forward?
HASEN: Yeah, effectively, right here we have now some good knowledge. So again in, I consider it was, the early 2010s, Kansas handed considered one of these documentary proof-of-citizenship legal guidelines. And this, once more, is a regulation that might require you to supply your naturalization certificates, your beginning certificates, your marriage license, issues like that. We all know that when Kansas tried to place this regulation in place, 30,000 individuals had their voter registrations placed on maintain till a federal courtroom issued a preliminary injunction saying, you may’t implement this regulation whereas we have now a trial. Of these 30,000 individuals, greater than 99% of them have been eligible to vote, and so it has an enormous disenfranchising impact.
The case over this documentary proof-of-citizenship regulation went to trial in a case referred to as Fish v. Kobach. This was a case that was defended by Kris Kobach. He is one of many well-known election deniers. He was the secretary of state of Kansas. He is now Kansas’ lawyer common. He tried to show that noncitizen voting was an enormous drawback within the elections. He mentioned that the quantity of fraud within the elections was the tip of the iceberg. And when the federal district courtroom decide issued her ruling – and he or she was, I consider, a George H. W. Bush appointee – she mentioned, there is no such thing as a iceberg; there may be solely an icicle, and it is made up largely of administrative error.
We all know the quantity of noncitizen voting in the USA is trivial in comparison with the disenfranchising results of documentary proof-of-citizenship legal guidelines. But, that is the very regulation that the SAVE Act, which has handed the Home and is pending within the Senate, would impose nationally in the USA.
GROSS: Getting again to Trump attempting to get entry to voting rolls from states, and succeeding in some cases, Pam Bondi, the lawyer common, tried to make a take care of Minnesota. We’ll pull out ICE in return for you turning over voter rolls. What did you make of that while you heard it?
HASEN: I believed it was outrageous. The concept that you’d situation one thing associated to immigration enforcement, regulation enforcement on this want listing to get the voting rolls, there isn’t any actual connection to it. It struck me as a type of extortion. It had a form of mafia really feel to it, you recognize, that for those who do not give us what we would like, we’ll proceed to harm you and your residents. I simply assume the 2 points don’t have any connection to 1 one other. And the concept she would convey it up as a possible quid professional quo is simply undeserving of the Division of Justice or what we’d anticipate in an lawyer common.
GROSS: Properly, let me reintroduce you. Should you’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is Richard Hasen. He teaches regulation and political science at UCLA, the place he additionally directs the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge. And he is the founding father of the favored Election Regulation Weblog. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF CHARLIE HUNTER SONG, “MIGHTY MIGHTY”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to my interview with UCLA regulation and political science professor Richard Hasen. He directs the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge and is the founding father of the favored Election Regulation Weblog. We recorded our interview yesterday.
I need to play a clip of one thing that President Trump mentioned throughout his State of the Union deal with about how he’d like to vary how elections are administered.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am asking you to approve the SAVE America Act…
(CHEERING)
TRUMP: …To cease unlawful aliens and others who’re unpermitted individuals from voting in our sacred American elections. The dishonest is rampant in our elections. It is rampant. It is quite simple. All voters should present voter ID.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: All voters should present proof of citizenship as a way to vote.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And no extra crooked mail-in ballots, apart from sickness, incapacity, navy or journey. None.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And this ought to be a straightforward one. And by the best way, it is polling at 89%, together with Democrats – 89%.
(CHEERING)
GROSS: Let’s simply undergo what Trump mentioned on this State of the Union deal with. He mentioned that, you recognize, 89% of American persons are for voter ID. That does not imply they’re for the type of voter ID that Trump desires, which is a way more excessive, laborious to get type of voter ID.
HASEN: Properly, so there’s two issues, proper? One is, what do it’s important to present on the polling place? And what the SAVE America Act would do is enable for a really slender set of IDs that might be allowed. So, for instance, it could exclude scholar identifications, which, after all, is one thing that many college students who’re in faculty, who do not drive, that might be their major type of identification. But additionally, each the SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act would impose documentary proof-of-citizenship necessities to register to vote. In order that’s totally different than voter ID. And there is not public help for that.
There’s public help for common voter identification necessities, however not for present me your papers. You possibly can’t register to vote except you possibly can produce an unique of your beginning certificates or your naturalization certificates and your marriage license, for those who’ve modified your identify, or your passport. Passport, I consider, nonetheless value $180 to get. So this is able to, you recognize, form of have a skewing impact in direction of those that are wealthier who may produce these sorts of paperwork. There’s not public help for that.
GROSS: There’s one other a part of the Voting Rights Act, one of many civil rights payments, that is being contested in courtroom now. Are you able to speak about that?
HASEN: So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had an vital modification that was made in 1982. It is generally known as Part 2. And it is the a part of the Voting Rights Act that requires, within the context of redistricting, the drawing of districts the place minority voters – Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American voters – get an opportunity to elect a candidate of their alternative. It has led to nice development within the variety of minority-preferred candidates. And for those who have a look at Congress now, of the 435 members, over 100 of these members establish with considered one of these communities.
There is a case in entrance of the Supreme Court docket now referred to as Louisiana v. Callais. It is a difficult case. It was first argued final March, the place the Voting Rights Act itself was probably not a difficulty. As a substitute, the query was whether or not it violated the Structure for the state of Louisiana to take race an excessive amount of under consideration in how they drew district strains. We had anticipated an opinion within the Callais case on the finish of the Supreme Court docket’s time period final June. As a substitute of an opinion, we acquired an order from the Supreme Court docket saying the case was going to be reargued.
In the course of the summer time on a late Friday afternoon in August, the Supreme Court docket mentioned, this is what we would like you to temporary in our reargument. And it was about whether or not Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act may now be unconstitutional. It is a difficulty the place the Supreme Court docket has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. And now the Voting Rights Act itself is probably going to be both struck down or, I believe more likely, Part 2 goes to be reinterpreted to be toothless. It’ll nonetheless be a regulation on the books, however it is going to be nearly not possible for minority voters to have the ability to elect their candidates of alternative by means of Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
GROSS: And what impression do you assume this is able to have?
HASEN: I believe this is able to be a horrible setback for American democracy. It could imply that not simply Congress however our state legislatures, our metropolis councils, our county boards, our faculty districts could be a lot whiter, far more homogeneous. We’d have a lot much less illustration.
And in the case of Congress, the place there’s concern that Republican states may redraw congressional districts to do away with these districts which have been required by Part 2 and create extra white Republican districts, I believe there will even be strain in Democratic states to get rid of these districts, unfold out these dependable Democratic voters into extra districts to create extra Democratic districts that will even elect the primary alternative of white voters reasonably than the vote decisions of candidates of shade. And so whereas the partisan implications should not utterly clear and may profit Republicans to some extent, it is going to be an actual loss for honest illustration in the USA.
GROSS: You want to see our Structure up to date. However you’d particularly prefer to see a brand new constitutional modification relating to voting. What would you prefer it to say?
HASEN: Properly, let’s speak about the truth that the U.S. Structure doesn’t assure anybody the suitable to vote. It merely says that if you are going to maintain an election, you may’t discriminate on the idea of race or gender or age between 18 and 21. We do not have an affirmative proper to vote like most different fashionable constitutions have. As a substitute, the Structure says you solely have the suitable to vote within the Home. And the {qualifications} to vote are these set by states. So there isn’t any federal constitutional assure of anybody to have the ability to vote.
And if we return to the 2000 election, to Bush versus Gore – the case within the Supreme Court docket that ended the dispute over who acquired Florida’s Electoral School votes – in that case, the Supreme Court docket mentioned that state legislatures get to decide on the way for selecting presidential electors. And despite the fact that states have on condition that means to vote to voters, to vote for president, states may take it again in future elections and have state legislatures immediately appoint electors. So all of that is to say that we do not have sturdy voting rights protections like most different superior democracies do of their constitutions.
So for those who have a look at the structure of Germany or Canada, it’s going to say, for those who’re a citizen and also you’re at the least 18, you get the suitable to vote. If we had that and we had different issues that defend the equal weighting of votes and honest distribution of political energy, we would be a lot stronger as a democracy. And it could be a lot tougher for somebody like a Donald Trump to mess with and intervene with the conduct of elections.
GROSS: Thanks a lot to your time right this moment and for explaining some actually difficult issues which can be occurring in our election system proper now.
HASEN: Properly, I am actually glad that we’re having this opportunity to have this dialog as a result of now’s the time for individuals to concentrate and be vigilant. We will not wait till November.
GROSS: Rick Hasen is the founding father of the Election Regulation Weblog. And he is a professor of regulation and political science, in addition to director of the Safeguarding Democracy Challenge on the UCLA College of Regulation. His newest e book known as “A Actual Proper To Vote.” We recorded our interview yesterday morning. Later within the day, the Supreme Court docket introduced an emergency choice pertaining to redistricting and the midterms. A lawsuit filed by 4 New Yorkers challenged the map of a district redrawn in 2024 by Republicans to incorporate elements of each Staten Island and Brooklyn.
The lawsuit argued that the redrawn map was unconstitutional beneath New York state’s structure as a result of it diluted the facility of Black and Latino voters. A decrease courtroom dominated in favor of the Democrats. The Republican consultant from that district requested the Supreme Court docket to pause that ruling till the map could possibly be redrawn. The Supreme Court docket agreed and overturned the decrease courtroom’s keep. That call will seemingly assist Republicans preserve that congressional seat within the midterms.
Rick Hasen wrote on his weblog that for him, the headline was Justice Alito’s concurrence, which says, race-conscious redistricting is odious. Hasen is worried as a result of Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which as we mentioned is being challenged in one other case earlier than the Supreme Court docket, prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the idea of race. Hasen says yesterday’s choice is, quote, “unhealthy information not only for Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act, however for extra voting safety within the states,” unquote. After we take a brief break, John Powers will evaluation a brand new Japanese movie a few gangster’s son who goals of being a star in Kabuki theater. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE BAD PLUS’ “THE BEAUTIFUL ONES”)
Copyright © 2026 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 might fluctuate. Transcript textual content could also be revised to appropriate errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org could also be edited after its unique broadcast or publication. The authoritative report of NPR’s programming is the audio report.
