Questions from members of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday seemed to suggest the majority won't boot former President Donald Trump from Colorado's November ballot or allow other Democratic-leaning states such as New Mexico to do so.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said he believes the justices will base their decision on whether one state can disqualify a candidate seeking national office.

"There seemed to be a lot of concern that this could lead to either chaos, with a lot of different decisions coming from states, or whether this would mean that one state could effectively decide this very important issue for all of the states," he said, "and it seemed like, to some degree, all nine justices had some concern about that."

The Colorado Supreme Court earlier ruled that Trump should be prevented from returning to the White House because he participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the nation's Capitol. The Supreme Court, which has a solid 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments for about two hours on Thursday.

Formal challenges to Trump's presidential candidacy have been filed in at least 35 states, but they will likely remain on hold, since Becker expects the Supreme Court to issue a ruling soon - perhaps as early as next week and not later than the end of the month.

"I think the Supreme Court took this case on an accelerated schedule clearly with an eye towards clarifying this issue from a federal, constitutional perspective as quickly as possible," he said.

Earlier this week, in a separate lawsuit against Trump, a federal appeals court ruled he is not immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election. Trump lawyers also are expected to appeal that decision to the high court.

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


get more stories like this via email

A government watchdog group is joining others in raising concerns about last-minute additions to the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate. The Campaign Legal Center says one provision would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders. It comes after federal courts have thwarted some of President Donald Trump's recent policies.

Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center president, said the "Founding Fathers" were trying to prevent a president from behaving like a "king" when they established three separate but equal branches of government.

"What's happened here is that members of the Republican party in Congress think their job is, or their duty is, to support the presidency whatever they do and not act as a check on the presidency," he explained.

Trump has repeatedly attacked judges who oppose his policies and his administration has refused to abide by their orders - even those issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Potter believes the White House is trying to expand and consolidate executive powers over Congress and the courts - which he says poses major risks to American democracy and the rule of law.

A second provision inserted in the bill at the last minute has raised the ire of both Democrats and Republicans. It includes a 10-year moratorium on state and local governments to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns and elections.

Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director, Policy & Strategic Partnerships with the Campaign Legal Center, said 20 states, including New Mexico, already have adopted such laws.

"States have acted, but now with this provision in the reconciliation bill, states would be unable to enforce those laws and limit the use of AI in elections," she explained.

Congress has not passed its own A-I regulation bill. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, a fierce supporter of President Trump, said Tuesday she would not have voted for the bill if she had known about the A-I provision, contending it would violate state rights.


get more stories like this via email

Voters in the Commonwealth have only a few more weeks to cast early ballots in the Democratic and Republican primary elections.

Virginia voters have until June 14 to cast an early vote in the primary. According to the Virginia Public Access Project, nearly 60,000 Virginians have filled out ballots as of May 20.

Karen Hult, professor of political science at Virginia Tech University, said many voters have children starting their summer breaks or leaving college after finals around this time of year. She noted the timing of the vote and a lack of contested races could mean low voter turnout on Election Day.

"They're also thinking about, 'what are we going to do for summer vacation?' and things like that," Hult acknowledged. "The context right now, in many parts of Virginia, is not really necessarily having people focus on there being an election right around the corner."

Democratic voters will decide on their statewide nominees for Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor, along with nominees for some competitive seats in the House of Delegates. There are no statewide nomination contests for Republican voters but voters can weigh in on House of Delegates nominees in some districts and other local offices.

Hult pointed out national politics can often filter into state races, explaining voters tend to go against the sitting President's party.

"There is a tendency in the state of Virginia for the gubernatorial nominee or candidate that's elected to be of the opposite party of the President," Hult observed. "That's what has many Republicans in the state looking over their shoulders and saying, 'This is a tough election. We really, really, really need to protect the Republican brand moving forward.'"

Polling trends agree with Hult's assessment. A recent Roanoke College poll last week found Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger with a 17-point lead over Republican nominee Winsome Earl-Sears.

Voters who want to cast a mail-in ballot must submit an application to their local election office by Friday, June 6 at 5 p.m. It must be returned by June 14. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day, June 17.


get more stories like this via email

In South Dakota and across the country, groups are working to help tone down the nation's heated political rhetoric. And experts are debating whether the divisive landscape will see a correction.

In a forum hosted by the R Street Institute, panelists noted this isn't the only time in U.S. history when populism and an anti-establishment mood were major forces in politics.

Emily Chamlee-Wright, president and CEO of the Institute for Humane Studies, said as bad as things might feel right now, it doesn't mean America is in grave danger of falling apart.

"We have this resilience baked in," said Chamlee-Wright, "but that doesn't mean that we can sit back and just wait for it, either."

Chamlee-Wright said as people lose faith in U.S. institutions, skeptics should take a step back and see their value.

And if enough people can feel a shared sense of those benefits, it should become easier to practice civil discourse in everyday life.

In the state's largest city, a new organization - Stronger Sioux Falls - just launched. Officials say they want to create spaces for meaningful dialogue about important issues facing the city.

Chamlee-Wright said her organization adheres to a set of guiding principles it feels keep society glued together. They include toleration, under the freedom of speech umbrella.

"If we do that well, the outcome is that our conversations are better," said Chamlee-Wright. "But that's not just fluffy stuff - it means that we're much better equipped to see the humanity of every other person."

She said by sticking to these practices in informal settings, America's formal structures will be in much better shape in the long run.

She added that should allow voters and policymakers to take on complex challenges, and solve them in ways that go beyond the bare minimum effort.



get more stories like this via email