Examples of proposed policies and candidates tied to false claims of election fraud have spread to Minnesota, and a new national report found the movement is not slowing down ahead of this fall's vote.

A trio of voter-rights groups issued findings into how state legislatures are trying to subvert elections, including more leeway to reject results, requiring partisan or outside audits, and shifting power away from election administrators. Some ideas have been floated by Minnesota Republicans but are not likely to pass under the current balance of power.

Rachel Homer, counsel for the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, said simply proposing them poses a threat.

"This is about everyone in support of democracy," Homer asserted. "Both political parties really need to be standing against this movement toward autocracy."

Despite calls for unity, Republicans are seeing more candidates for statewide offices who either perpetuate the stolen-election narrative, or suggest current laws need restrictions they said would tighten election security.

The Minnesota GOP recently endorsed such a candidate running for Secretary of State, the office overseeing elections. The report said 175 such laws were introduced in the U.S. this year.

Homer argued false election-fraud claims, taking shape following Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 presidential vote, have ballooned to a five-alarm fire. She noted even if most bills do not pass, voters are still being exposed to theories soundly rejected by the courts.

"These bills are being proposed by a lot of legislators across a lot of states," Homer observed. "They clearly think there's an audience for it. "

The groups behind the report emphasized it is important to remember most administrators, staffs and volunteers are committed to free and fair elections.

Sylvia Albert, national voting and elections director for Common Cause, said outside the findings, potentially having some candidates espousing such views take office is concerning. If election results were to be rejected without a valid reason, she said it might be harder to seek recourse.

"So, there definitely is an ability to challenge in court, [but] the courts are leaning more and more toward stepping away and letting the political process run itself," Albert stressed. "What that does, is not protect the people who don't have power, which are normal Americans."

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

Data show older voters are an influential demographic in Wyoming elections and a new series of videos asks candidates questions specific to the group.

The Secretary of State said more than two-thirds of Wyoming voters in 2022 were over age 50.

Tom Lacock, associate state director for AARP Wyoming, said sometimes issues important to the group get overlooked. The organization is producing a series of short videos with candidates asking straight-to-the-point questions about property taxes, funding ambulance services and how the state can best help older adults age in their homes and communities.

Lacock explained the questions are designed to focus on issues important to older voters.

"We're hoping that doing this helps cut through some of the other stuff that you see online," Lacock emphasized. "And becomes less about maybe a specific party or even a specific traction of a party and more issues-based."

Lacock reported candidate participation is increasing. As of Wednesday, the AARP Wyoming Facebook page and website featured videos from 18 races and 44 candidates across the state. Many Wyoming races will be decided during the primary and Lacock pointed out the group is working to release more videos before the Aug. 20 election.

Lacock noted AARP started the video series before the 2022 election. The number of video views for this year's primary, he added, shows voters aged 50 and up are continuing to pay attention.

"We're approaching 2,300 over the course of the last month," Lacock observed. "People are taking the time to look through these to figure out where candidates sit on issues that are important to them."

A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.

David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.

Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.

"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."

He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.

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

Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.

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.