This week, the U.S. Supreme Court awarded former President Donald Trump a significant win by giving him immunity from criminal prosecution for what are known as "official acts" taken while in office.

New data show most voters in Pennsylvania and around the country are paying attention and understand the effect the next president could have on the future of the high court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said its poll showed most voters see Supreme Court appointments as crucial in their November election decisions.

"Nearly three out of four voters, like 75%, said that the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court justices will be the most important consideration for them in voting for both presidents and US senators in 2024," Harris reported.

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 found the next president's opportunity to appoint new judges could reshape the court for generations to come.

Harris reported the poll revealed an overwhelming 40-point margin, 64% to 24% of voters, favor Congressional action to set 18-year term limits for current and future Supreme Court justices.

"No one deserves power for life," Harris contended. "What we've seen is that the court cannot regulate itself, and so having term limits would be really, really important."

Harris emphasized voting extends beyond personal choice, affecting generations past and future. Ballots shape long-term outcomes, including pivotal decisions such as Supreme Court appointments.

"It's important to think about generations after us," Harris argued. "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 added voters should not feel their fundamental freedoms can be bought and sold. She believes Supreme Court justices should have the same ethical standards as everyone in Congress and all the other judges around the country.


get more stories like this via email

California political analysts predict the race for president will tighten since President Joe Biden has dropped out and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

If elected, Harris would be the first Black woman and first person of Asian descent to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Lynn Vavreck, professor of political science at the University of California-Los Angeles, predicted it will re-energize the race on the Democratic side.

"There will be a flood of money coming into whatever the new ticket is likely to be," Vavreck pointed out. "The race will once again tighten to be somewhere around 50/50. That will roll us into the Democratic convention. And from that point forward, it's not that long until early voting starts."

Harris has vowed to "earn and win" the nomination at the Democratic National Convention, which starts in Chicago on August 19. It is unclear if anyone will challenge Harris for the nomination, or whom she might choose as a running mate.

Mark Baldassare, survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California, noted Harris previously served as a U.S. Senator from California, Attorney General of the Golden State, and District Attorney for San Francisco.

"This is somebody who has a long history of public service at the local, state and national levels," Baldassare emphasized. "And of course, spent three years as the vice president, which is very relevant (to) somebody who would step into the Oval Office and become president."

Harris is a strong supporter of abortion rights, voting rights, social justice and environmental causes.


get more stories like this via email

Voting-rights advocates are pleased two of three Washoe County commissioners who refused to certify the results of two primary election recounts decided to reverse course after facing legal pushback.

On July 11, the commissioners voted against certifying the results for two races: one for a commission seat, the other for a county school board position. The same day, the state filed suit with the Nevada Supreme Court to get the board to fulfill its duties.

Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of the advocacy group Silver State Voices, said the controversy set what she called a "negative precedent."

"We want to ensure that we are getting a legal record through the courts as to what the precedent is," Persaud-Zamora explained. "So that when folks try to pull shenanigans in the General (Election), that we have a blueprint to be able to address these things."

She noted her organization is hopeful the state Supreme Court can hear the case and rule on it, despite the results already being certified. She contended if the three Republican county commissioners were capable of instilling doubt, it could happen elsewhere come November. Similar cases have been seen in battleground states like Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Ryan Vortisch, Reno democracy director for Silver State Voices, said the incident undeniably perpetuates the false narrative there is reason to distrust election processes. He and others are reminding people the systems are reliable.

"While it's positive that we did certify the results, it does still kind of creates doubt that we needed to do a revote in the first place," Vortisch pointed out. "You know, the reality is that we are a battleground county in a battleground state and because of that, we have attracted a lot of mis- and disinformation about the elections process."

Persaud-Zamora added incidents like the Washoe County vote prompt some people to believe false information and feed into it. But it also leads to what she called "political and mental fatigue," which can take a toll on voters.

"That clearly has a whole different level of potential consequences: people not voting in the presidential election," Persaud-Zamora emphasized. "But beyond that, I mean, we've had many conversations. It's not just about the top of the ticket. It's about all of the ticket, down the ballot."

A voting rights group has filed a lawsuit in Alabama to prevent thousands from losing their right to vote.

The Campaign Legal Center said Alabama's House Bill 100 could potentially disenfranchise many voters just before the 2024 general election. The bill aims to expand the list of crimes which result in the loss of voting rights, by adding more than 120 felonies to the existing list. Backers of the bill say it's necessary to protect poll workers.

Blair Bowie, director of the Restore Your Vote program for the Campaign Legal Center, highlighted the effect the bill could have on Alabama voters.

"People who have been convicted of the crimes that have been recently added to the list, people who have the right to vote now, could actually cast their absentee ballots before the law goes into effect taking away their voting rights," Bowie pointed out.

She noted it raises concerns over whether people could face criminal prosecution for illegal registration or voting if they attempt to cast their ballot. Currently, 40 existing "crimes of moral turpitude" disqualify someone from voting. The list would now include crimes like elder abuse, domestic violence and stalking.

Bowie pointed out the group's main concern is to not allow the measure to deny voters the chance to make their voices heard this November. She explained the Campaign Legal Center's lawsuit argued the law violates the Alabama constitution prohibiting changes to election laws within six months of an election.

"This new additional definition of crimes and moral turpitude is set to go into effect at the beginning of October," Bowie observed. "Clearly within six months of an election, it clearly violates that constitutional provision."

In Alabama if you lose your right to vote, you have to go through the state's process of getting a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote. Bowie advises anyone unsure of their voting status to visit restoreyourvote.org.


get more stories like this via email