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.

Republicans in Washington, D.C. remain focused on greatly reducing federal spending. However, a backlash is mounting in Congressional districts, including Minnesota, and some constituents feel ignored. Whether it's executive orders by the Trump administration or budget votes taking shape in Congress, the dramatic downsizing of federal agencies, programs and services has led to heightened concern about the impact on a host of populations.

Brian Vroman, a Grand Rapids resident, said he's worried about the possibility of steep Medicaid cuts. He says even if it's uncomfortable for House Republicans, they still should have face-to-face conversations.

"There's a lot of pent-up anger, frustration and I think that the only way to alleviate that is to have open dialogue. We're not at war with each other," he explained.

Vroman's congressman, Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Duluth, could not be reached for comment. Protesters have gathered outside his office to demand a town hall. GOP leaders have urged a pause on such events to avoid the backlash while painting attendees of recent meetings as "paid activists." Vroman is part of a left-leaning grassroots group, but says he's not paid for his actions and has voted for both parties.

Sarah Jaynes, executive director of the Rural Democracy Initiative, said it's reasonable for voters in conservative districts, including those who consistently vote Republican, to feel blindsided by some of these moves and demand answers. She feels some of the organizing is having an effect.

"[Some] members of Congress are quietly speaking up, and ensuring that funding is continuing to move into their communities," she said.

National political publications have reported that some House GOP members have had "back channel" conversations with the White House to reverse cuts led by Trump adviser Elon Musk. While Democrats have criticized the manner and scope of spending reductions, they too are facing pressure to host more meetings to highlight voter frustration. Some Democrats are now holding town halls in GOP districts.

With Pennsylvania's primary election set for May 20, a nonpartisan group is working to raise awareness about voter registration.

Over 8.7 million Pennsylvanians are eligible to vote in municipal elections.

Amy Widestrom - the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania - said she is concerned about low turnout in local races, noting Montgomery County's 41.9% turnout in 2023.

She says one precinct saw less than 1% - only 379 voters. She emphasized the importance of voting for key positions.

"These are the people that are doing the business of our local counties and our local schools and our local judges and our state courthouses," said Widestrom. "And so these are extraordinarily important elections. And yet, in 2023 for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, we only got a 35% turnout."

She adds Pennsylvanians must register to vote by May 5 to cast a ballot in the primary, and the last day to apply for a mail-in-ballot is May 13.

Widestrom said low voter turnout has been an ongoing issue, especially in off-cycle elections like primaries and odd-year general elections.

She added that the League will host civic engagement events to educate voters on upcoming races.

"We'll be hosting a series of webinars called ballot box basics, highlighting both the importance of these municipal elections, but also, how do you learn about these candidates?" said Widestrom. "So we're going to host a webinar on judging our judges. How do we learn about the judicial candidates?"

Widestrom added that the League will be updating their website at Vote411.org with statewide candidate information before Pennsylvanians head to the polls or mail in their ballot.

More testimony was heard yesterday about term limit reforms in North Dakota, an issue voters around the state might have to decide again.

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved imposing term limits for state lawmakers and the governor. Legislators can no longer serve more than eight years in the House and Senate.

But a handful of bills this session call for another ballot question, to raise state lawmakers' term limit to 12 years.

Sen. Justin Gerhardt, R-Mandan, sponsor of one bill, said the new framework threatens the value of experience at the State Capitol.

"Our citizen-led Legislature meets for only 80 days every two years," Gerhardt pointed out. "By the time a new legislator gets a handle on the budget process, legislative rules and the needs of their district, they're already on their way out the door."

He added his bill also addresses the issue of lawmakers who are appointed to fill a seat. Opponents said the moves undermine the will of the voters.

A separate bill proposing a new statewide vote on the prospective changes will be heard this morning. If one of the measures advances to the ballot, it likely would come up in the 2026 general election.

Those who want term limits said they foster fresh voices in policymaking.

Kevin Herrmann, a resident of Beulah, is one of the many people to testify against the new reform efforts.

"This resolution is a way for legislators to get back their legislative power over the citizens of North Dakota," Herrmann contended.

Another thorny element to this debate is, the 2022 ballot question included language prohibiting state lawmakers from trying to force the issue down the road. One of the bills in question repeals the language in trying to get the question back on the ballot. Backers of the proposals acknowledge they are likely to draw court challenges over constitutional arguments.

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


get more stories like this via email