CLARIFICATION: Ernest Becker did not create the Terror Management Theory, although it was based on his ideas and research. (2:00 a.m. MDT, Oct. 28, 2022)

It's the political season and Washingtonians are being flooded with messages ahead of the midterm elections.

Curiously, our anxiety over death could play a big role in how we react to those messages, and even in whom we vote for.

Brian Burke, psychology professor at Fort Lewis College, said the Seattle-based Ernest Becker Foundation has analyzed how the so-called Terror Management Theory explains our political motivations. The theory indicates most of our political decisions are not made with the rational parts of our brains, but are instead more emotionally-based.

"When we're reminded of our own death, our preferences tend to change," Burke pointed out. "We might support different candidates based on death anxiety than we would have had we not been triggered, or reminded of, our own death."

Burke said this can play out a few different ways in elections. For instance, traumatic world events such as September 11th have been shown to cause people to tend toward more conservative leaders, often for their messages on law and order.

Other research has shown even the thought of immigrants moving into someone's neighborhood can cause them to think more about death, and thus take a harder stance on immigration.

Burke noted Terror Management Theory, which was developed based on Ernest Becker's research on death anxiety, finds people who are unconsciously thinking about death are more motivated to want to fit in with their peers or some larger group.

He added there is a way to push back against the ways the fear of death affects our decision-making.

"We can slow down and consciously and explicitly make more rational decisions about things," Burke advised. "It involves doing just that: reflecting on it and thinking through our opinions on an issue and taking some deep breaths and thinking, 'Ok, how do I really feel about this?'"

Burke suggests if you are so inclined, you can analyze how politicians might be using the fear of death this campaign season.

"When you're inundated, as you will be, with radio and television and other YouTube ads for political candidates, really think about what are they trying to get at in you here?" Burke recommended. "What message are they trying to send?"

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.