UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the legal arguments surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s attempt to remain on some state ballots for the 2024 presidential election, particularly focusing on the applicability to presidential elections of the Supreme Court’s U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton ruling. Professor Amar argues that invoking the Term Limits case in the context of presidential elections is logically flawed and historically inaccurate, as Article II of the Constitution grants states broad powers in selecting presidential electors, unlike the more restricted state powers in congressional elections addressed in Term Limits.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss age-based discrimination in absentee voting laws across eight U.S. states, examining their compatibility with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that these laws, which favor older voters, violate the Amendment's clear prohibition of age discrimination in voting rights and should be challenged in court, criticizing recent circuit court decisions that have failed to properly interpret the Amendment's equality mandate.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a legal controversy in Nebraska regarding felony disenfranchisement, specifically focusing on a recent law allowing felons to vote immediately after completing their sentences and the state attorney general’s challenge to this law. Professor Sarat argues that the Nebraska Supreme Court should reject the attorney general’s contentions, allow the new law to stand, and permit former felons to vote, asserting that felony disenfranchisement is a vestige of a shameful historical era that should be consigned to the past.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan critiques J.D. Vance’s performance as a vice-presidential candidate and his controversial statements about parenthood, family, and voting rights. Professor Buchanan argues that Vance’s views on parenthood and societal investment are deeply flawed, emphasizing that all individuals, regardless of parental status, have a stake in society’s future and that Vance's narrow understanding of human interdependence renders him unfit for leadership.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss North Dakota’s recently passed Initiated Measure 1, which prohibits anyone over the age of 81 from serving in or being on the ballot for the U.S. House or Senate. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that Measure 1 violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights, which they contend includes the right to be voted for and hold office, making the measure unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court were to overturn its precedent barring states from adding congressional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent Illinois state court ruling in Colazzo v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which dealt with the complex issue of ballot access and the application of a new state law that would have prevented certain Republican candidates from appearing on the November 2024 general election ballot. Professor Amar argues that while the court reached the correct result in this case, the reasoning behind the decision raises interesting questions about the independence of state law grounds, the constraints on altering election rules close to an election, and the need to balance fairness and notice concerns with the importance of each election in maintaining democratic integrity.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how California’s Rule of Court 2.1008, which allows individuals aged 70 and older to be excused from jury service due to disability without requiring documentation, may violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights. Professor Amar argues that since jury service is a form of political participation akin to voting, singling out those 70 and older in a way that reduces their jury participation based on assumptions about age and disability is constitutionally problematic, just as it would be to excuse women from juries based on assumptions about their domestic responsibilities.

James F. McHugh, a retired Massachusetts Appeals Court Justice, comments on the American Law Institute (ALI)’s recently released Statement entitled “Ethical Standards for Election Administration,” which seeks to help election administrators understand and agree on basic ethical principles for implementing election laws, in light of the contentious 2020 Presidential Election and concerns about the upcoming November 2024 election. Justice McHugh points out that ALI’s report provides a set of common principles and a shared national vocabulary for ethical election administration, emphasizing adherence to the law, protection of election integrity, transparency, impartiality, personal integrity, ethics, and professional excellence, with the goal of increasing public confidence in the impartial administration of elections.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how the decentralized nature of the U.S. presidential election system allows individual states to have varying rules that can significantly impact the overall outcome, as illustrated by recent examples from Ohio, Nebraska, and the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania. Professor Amar argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, which emphasized the need for uniformity in presidential candidate ballot access across states, was not adequately defended by the Justices, as it failed to address why the Constitution permits such consequential disuniformity in election administration among states.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone coment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from primary election ballots due to his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol breach. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the Court’s reasoning, primarily based on concerns about nationwide ballot uniformity in presidential elections, is flawed because it fails to properly consider the Constitution’s overall design, which grants states significant autonomy in running presidential elections and selecting electors.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s long history of making false claims about election fraud and his current warnings about the 2024 presidential election being rigged. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s baseless allegations are damaging democracy, sowing distrust in the electoral process, and setting the stage for potential unrest if he loses in November.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, where the Court ruled that Donald Trump could not be disqualified from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, emphasizing the decision’s implications for the Court’s prestige and internal consensus. Professor Sarat argues that the decision, while appearing unanimous, reveals deep divisions within the Court and suggests a failure by Chief Justice John Roberts to foster genuine unanimity or to protect the Court’s reputation, further criticizing the decision’s approach and its broader implications for the Court’s impartiality.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, in which the Justices seemed inclined to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that disqualified Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary under the Fourteenth Amendment for “engaging in insurrection.” Professor Dorf points out that the Justices’ questioning revealed a spectrum of potential rationales, from concerns over political retribution and the historical interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to structural arguments about federal versus state authority in determining a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar expresses concern over the quality of the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, suggesting that the Justices’ questions failed to adequately address the complexities of the case and the constitutional principles at stake, particularly regarding the electoral college and interstate federalism. Professor Amar critiques the Court’s understanding of the electoral college system, arguing that the Justices’ apprehensions about the potential consequences of their decision overlook the inherent flexibility states have in appointing electors—a flexibility underscored by originalist constitutional interpretations and past precedents.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone comment on a federal lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Mississippi, among others, challenging Mississippi’s law that counts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within five business days thereafter for federal elections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed due to the implausibility of its legal theory, highlighting the distinction between the act of voting and the counting of votes, and underscoring the constitutional and statutory framework that grants states broad leeway in election administration, including the acceptance of mail-in ballots.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating the state’s legislative district lines based on its finding that they were unconstitutional due to non-contiguous territories, a decision criticized by conservatives as partisan. Professor Amar points out that this ruling, focused only on state legislative districts, does not directly implicate the “Independent State Legislature” theory discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Moore v. Harper case, as it pertains to state, not federal, elections. Furthermore, Professor Amar argues that the decision’s compliance with straightforward state constitutional text suggests federal courts are unlikely to find it violates due process or republican government principles, illustrating the limited role of federal oversight in state court interpretations of state law post-Moore.

In this second of a series of columns, UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar responds to arguments against disqualifying Donald Trump from presidential election ballots under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, focusing on Ross Douthat’s assertion in a New York Times essay that such disqualification is antidemocratic. Professor Amar argues that enforcing constitutional provisions, including Section 3, is not antidemocratic as it reflects the will of the people, and he emphasizes that the real question is whether the requirements of Section 3 have been met in Trump’s case.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar points out flaws in Professor Larry Lessig’s argument in Slate regarding the inapplicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Donald Trump, emphasizing that the presidency is indeed an “office under the United States” and therefore covered by Section 3. Professor Amar highlights Professor Lessig’s failure to address this key point and questions why Professor Lessig’s essay overlooks the fact that federal legislators are not considered officers under the United States, a crucial distinction in constitutional law.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf points out that the U.S. Supreme Court faces critical decisions in two cases involving former President Donald Trump: one regarding his claim of absolute immunity against charges for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, and the other concerning his eligibility for the Presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Professor Dorf argues that despite Trump’s legal team arguing for more time due to the complexity of the immunity case, the Court should expedite its review in both cases, given the urgency of presidential primaries and the weak nature of Trump’s claims, especially against the well-founded argument that he is ineligible under the Fourteenth Amendment due to insurrectionist activities.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar argues that a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a private right to sue, may not be as catastrophic as some fear, given that there are potential workarounds for victims of Voting Rights Act violations. Professor Amar suggests that plaintiffs could use alternatives like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Ex Parte Young to address violations, as these routes do not require an explicit or implied private right of action under the statute being violated.