Good-government groups are criticizing the Supreme Court's decision Monday eliminating rules on how much a candidate can spend to pay back loans he or she made to the campaign.

The justices sided with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued over rules, which said a candidate can only raise $250,000 after an election to pay back a personal loan.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.

"This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money in politics and further opening the door to corruption and big moneyed interests calling the shots," Scherb contended.

The decision undermines part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In the supporting brief, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too great a burden on core political speech. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision, quote, "greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought it right to stop ... and can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Scherb emphasized he hopes it will drum up more support for the DISCLOSE Act, which would require campaigns and groups spending money to influence politics to report more about their funding, but he is not optimistic.

"We're not holding our breaths that 10 Senate Republicans would vote for something like this," Scherb acknowledged. "But if more big money is going to be spent in politics, it absolutely has to be disclosed. The public deserves to see who's trying to influence their voices and their votes."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the court awarded him a major win by giving him immunity from criminal prosecution for what are known as "official acts" taken while in office.

New data show a majority of voters in Arizona and around the country are paying attention and understand the impact the next president could have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could select and appoint up to four new justices, reshaping the legal precedent in the U.S. for years to come.

"It's important to think about generations after us," said Harris. "Many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially as justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."

Harris noted four of the current justices will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. Her organization's recent poll finds nearly 75% of voters say the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming presidential and Senate races.

Some argue the scandal-ridden Supreme Court makes the case for term limits. The Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, led by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, would create 18-year term limits for current and future justices as well as provide two appointments to the court in each four-year presidential term.

Harris said the justices should not be treated as if they're above the law.

"No one deserves power for life. What we've seen is that the court cannot regulate itself, and so having term limits would be really, really important," she continued.

The TERM Act was initially introduced in 2022, but died in committee. It was reintroduced last year, with no action since. But that proposal, and other Supreme Court reform initiatives, have faced pushback from Republicans who argue it would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the court.

Voting rights advocates say turnout for Nevada's June primary election was low overall but those who did vote did so mostly by mail.

Just over 383,000 voters participated, with 65% voting by mail.

Priscella Gomez, democracy manager for Silver State Voices, said it is worth noting despite Nevada's most populous counties -- Clark and Washoe -- seeing 63% and 70% voter turnout by mail respectively, other more rural counties, like Douglas, have seen a substantial increase.

"We noticed that in 2022, vote-by-mail in Douglas County had the highest and they remain the highest for 2024, which was 79% in Douglas," Gomez reported. "It's interesting to see that county is continuously increasing."

Gomez explained Nevadans have become more familiar with the vote-by-mail system. The state first transitioned to universal mail ballots in 2020 as a response to the pandemic, a change made permanent in 2021. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day are counted, which has received Republican criticism for the risks they think it poses to election security.

Noé Orosco, program manager for Silver State Voices, said while mail-in voting might be on the increase in some parts of the state, it is important to highlight other Nevadans may choose to make their voices heard in other ways. Orosco recommended the data be used to ensure resources are allocated appropriately throughout the state.

"Maybe it's a dropbox location rather than through the mail," Noé Orosco, program manager for Silver State Voices, suggested. "There's just a variety of ways that Nevadans can exercise that right, and I think this information just shows that we need to be very mindful of that, or we, the state, need to be very mindful of that."

Data show about 17% of those who voted in the Nevada primary did so in person during early voting. Close to 18% showed up on Election Day. Voting rights advocates said what is most important is making your voice heard. They said each county registrar is doing their job to ensure voting is secure and accurate.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently dismissed a case brought by Republican Arizona attorney general candidate Abraham Hamadeh, Republican Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby and an independent voter who wanted to decertify the results of the 2022 general election. Experts are now warning that with this year's highly contested presidential election, challenges to the results are likely to continue.

Harvard University government professor Steven Levitsky said the dysfunction in American democracy and erosion of civil discourse are cause for serious concern.

"There are a lot of sources of dysfunction in U.S. democracy," he said, "but I think the principle threat right now is that one of our two major parties has turned away from democratic rules of the game."

Levitsky said democracy can't survive if only one party is committed to abiding by democratic ideals. He added that all parties must accept the results of elections, reject the use of political violence and be willing to break from violent or anti-democratic groups.

Experts have said short-term solutions include more investments to safeguard election administration, but are also calling for more long-term fixes such as reforming the way business engages with U.S. politics.

Levitsky said the United States is what he called the most "counter-majoritarian democracy" in the world. He said it is the only established democracy where partisan minorities can thwart and sometimes even govern over majorities. He reminded people that despite former President Donald Trump losing the popular vote in 2016, he still became president, and the party that won fewer votes in the Senate gained control.

"That president and that Senate went on to appoint and confirm three Supreme Court justices which means that if we were like other established democracies, and the parties that one the most votes won the most power, we'd have a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court today," he said. "That is how out of whack our institutions are."

More than 80% of Americans feel elected officials are out of touch with their needs and wants, according to the Pew Research Center. Only 4% of Americans think the country's political system is working extremely or very well.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.