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.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona Secretary of State, said he was not shocked but disappointed when he found out the Trump administration had cut funding for the national election security program.

It is housed within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. A number of employees who worked with election officials to provide assessments and identify election threats were placed on leave pending review. Fontes emphasized the workers were crucial in helping Arizona run a smooth operation last November, despite 15 bomb threats.

Now Fontes, a Democrat, is working to create an independent organization to fulfill a similar role. He is getting support from bipartisan stakeholders around the country.

"We've had our knees kicked out from underneath us," Fontes argued. "Foreign advisories now have an open door to come in and do all kinds of things, including repeating the pattern of bomb threats that are intended specifically to disrupt our elections on Election Day like we saw in November."

Fontes stressed without support and resources provided through the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the spread of election misinformation and election official deepfakes will increase, posing a direct threat to peoples' ability to vote intelligently.

Fontes acknowledged Trump won the election and has the right to restructure and redirect federal resources, but added the president does not have the right to "eviscerate the ability to protect American elections."

Fontes sent his proposal for the nongovernmental organization to the National Association of Secretaries of State.

"I think across the board people understand the value of what was lost," Fontes explained. "I'm just happy that staff was on top of it and that my office was willing to make this proposal out there for folks to consider."

Fontes noted he has received a positive reception from his Republican colleagues, adding election administrators have a real issue on their hands and he will not sit back with his arms crossed.

"I hate playing the role of canary in the coal mine," Fontes underscored. "But right now, the canary was put on permanent leave and there is nobody protecting the coal miners which are our voters so it is a bad, bad situation."

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


get more stories like this via email

Indiana lawmakers are considering a plan to block college students from using school-issued IDs to vote.

Sen. Blake Doriot, R-Goshen, said it will prevent fraud. Students argued the change will make voting harder. The proposal affects out-of-state students most, forcing some to travel home to vote.

Manal Hussain, a junior at Indiana University-Indianapolis, said the bill creates unnecessary hurdles for students to cast a ballot.

"Instead of empowering them to be civically engaged this bill place unnecessary barriers in their way," Hussain contended. "Let's be clear that there is no evidence that student IDs are any less reliable than other forms of government-issued identification."

The bill would remove public college IDs from the list of acceptable voter IDs. Right now, students can vote with school IDs if they register in the county where they cast ballots. The bill would require an Indiana government-issued ID instead. Opponents said it creates barriers, especially for students without cars or proper documents. They warned it could further lower turnout in a state with already poor participation.

Doriot cited a conservative group's claim some voters cast ballots in multiple states.

"If these students wish to vote in Indiana, they must establish residency like any other individual that moves to our state," Doriot argued. "Let me be clear, my intention is not to prevent students from voting."

Critics countered there is little proof student IDs cause fraud, and said the bill mainly affects young voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. The House Elections and Apportionment Committee will decide whether to advance the bill. If approved, the full House will vote before it reaches the governor. Students and voting rights groups plan to keep fighting it.


get more stories like this via email

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.