The age of both presidential front-runners has drawn extra attention in this year's race and meanwhile, North Dakota voters this week embraced setting age limits for congressional representatives for the state leaving an expert with some doubts.

In this week's primary election, 61% of voters backed a state constitutional amendment which states no one from North Dakota, elected to the U.S. House or Senate, can be 81 or older toward the end of their term.

Elizabeth Kensinger, professor of psychology at Boston College, said concerns about older people holding office is not a simple debate. She emphasized outside of dementia, the science does not support the idea an older age threshold needs to be set.

"In fact, the science might suggest that there are some things that an 80-year-old might be doing better than a 60-year-old or a 40-year-old," Kensinger stressed.

She explained it includes being able to look at the big picture on major issues and regulating emotions more effectively. Kensinger argued mental gaffes, such as forgetting a name, should be balanced with the wisdom older candidates bring.

Backers of the measure said balance is important but their plan is a common-sense approach in response to public polling favoring such requirements.

Organizers also noted their effort was not targeting anyone specific. With age concerns also prominent among some U.S. Senate members, Kensinger acknowledged screening for things such as dementia is not a bad idea but overall, voters are in a good position to decide if someone is too old to be elected.

"There's a lot that happens on the campaign trail that allows the voting public to be able to get a window, at least, into someone's mental capacity," Kensinger contended.

Those behind the measure acknowledged there will likely be court challenges but they hope other states are inspired to take similar action. Legal experts point to a past U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the idea of states setting stricter qualifications for federal office.

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


get more stories like this via email

A proposal to make Wisconsin's strict Voter ID law a constitutional amendment passed Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Assembly on Tuesday.

Voters will see the proposal on the April 1 ballot. If approved, the state constitution would be amended, which would make the change much harder to repeal in the future. Proponents insist stricter ID requirements help to prevent voter fraud.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, and other opponents said they also provide a partisan advantage for Republicans.

"All it does is, it reduces the opportunity for certain segments of the population to be able to vote," Heck explained. "It doesn't do anything about preventing fraud, and it's just a voter suppression method."

Heck believes the measure will attract more conservatives to the polls in April. And even if voters reject the idea of changing the constitution, the state's voter ID requirement, which is already among the strictest in the country, would remain.

The state's voter ID law has been long debated for its prohibitive requirements. Wisconsin allows seven forms of identification to be presented at the polls but Heck pointed out they have to meet particular requirements.

"These are forms of ID that, although they seem on the surface to make some sense, they're very difficult for some segments of the population to obtain," Heck emphasized.

Heck added rushing to put the requirements in the state constitution is strategic, given the state Supreme Court justice ballot the measure will share. Over more than 40 years, the conservative Heritage Foundation lists only 68 cases of voter fraud in Wisconsin.

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


get more stories like this via email

As North Dakota's new legislative session takes shape, Indigenous voters in certain political districts will maintain their representation, after a decision by the nation's highest court. Advocates say the timing was critical. The case stemmed from recently created subdistricts meant to boost tribal representation on the Forth Berthold and Turtle Mountain reservations.

Local GOP officials sought to overturn the boundaries, arguing they discriminated against non-Natives, but the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to take up those arguments.

Nicole Donaghy, executive director of North Dakota Native Vote, said it's a relief that legal issues won't be top of mind.

"That's something that is a positive going into this legislative session for us. We're able to focus on legislation, not litigation," she explained.

One of the areas in question is District 4-A, currently represented by Lisa Finley-DeVille. Donaghy said having her as part of the Native delegation in Bismarck helps in areas such as protecting natural resources. A separate case is still pending about legislative district gains for other Tribal areas in North Dakota.

Arguments in that case were heard last fall, and the Native American Rights Fund says if the state is successful in overturning those other boundaries, there could be new map considerations. Donaghy added that even though the next redistricting won't be until after the 2030 Census, these legal fights serve as a reminder for Tribes to organize and maintain progress.

"Because it only happens once every 10 years, it's not always at the forefront of everybody's minds. And so, I really see that having Native American legislators does give our communities in North Dakota - albeit we are a small portion of the population - that level of representation within these decision-making bodies," she continued.

Sections of the federal Voting Rights Act are often central in these redistricting cases. Lawyers for Tribal plaintiffs note the law was meant to shield against efforts to dilute the voting power of marginalized populations. However, as the Brennan Center for Justice points out, these protections have been eroded by other Supreme Court decisions.

Members of the Texas Legislature are back in Austin for its 89th legislative session.

After newly elected lawmakers are sworn in, members will vote on a new Speaker of the House.

Cal Jillson, professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said it appears moderate Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, has enough support from both Democrats and middle of the road Republicans to beat the more conservative Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield, but Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton could try to sway the vote.

"We'll see how strongly Patrick, Abbott and Paxton weigh in behind Cook to try to get the conservative speaker that they haven't been able to get for the past decade," Jillson explained.

Republicans have the majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Jillson pointed out school vouchers, border patrol, the power grid and water issues are top priories for lawmakers.

After the 2023 session, Abbott convened several special sessions in an unsuccessful attempt to pass a school voucher program. Jillson expects funding for both private and public schools will be addressed over the next 140 days.

"I think they have enough revenue available to start a voucher program and then to go ahead and expand public school funding," Jillson observed. "The trick is in the details. "

He pointed out the proposed voucher program was scaled back from two years ago. Funding for public schools has not increased since 2019.

Border security is also a top priority for the Republican Party. Jillson stressed with President-elect Donald Trump in the White House, lawmakers will be able to pass more legislation without pushback from Washington.

"There may well be a state border patrol bill to put more Texas uniforms on the border," Jillson projected. "Certainly, there will be more attempts to give local law enforcement more power to arrest people they find in the country illegally."


get more stories like this via email