Almost a year before the 2024 election, the question of whether bets should be allowed on congressional races is being debated. The idea has civic-engagement groups worried.

A little-known government agency is playing a key role in deciding whether gambling and elections should mix. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been asked by the trading platform Kalshi to allow such bets through so-called "event contracts." They'd be limited to betting on which party will control Congress in future elections.

However, Stephen Spaulding, vice president for policy at the group Common Cause, said this would put even more pressure on the health of democracy in current political environment.

"This opens up a significant risk to the perception that the winners and losers of an election are not determined by voters, but by those who stand to gain financially," he said.

Common Cause has sent a filing to the commission, asking that it reject the proposal. Leadership with the House Task Force on Strengthening Democracy issued a similar request. Rep. Marc Pocan, D-Wis., is on the task force but declined comment.

Supporters of the idea have said the forecasting could help small businesses protect their interests while benefiting researchers. However, Spaulding said the world of politics is still reeling from the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. When you add gambling to the equation, he said, big spenders could hold sway over the process in an even bigger way.

"You can imagine a situation where an entity that is now able to spend money on elections post-Citizens United then places an enormous wager on the outcome of the election," he said, "and also funnels resources through Super PACs or other dark money vehicles to influence the outcome of an election."

Last year, Kalshi sought CFTC approval for bets to be placed on the 2022 midterms, but it ultimately withdrew its plan when commission staff raised concerns and recommended rejecting the proposal.

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


get more stories like this via email

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.

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.