Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent significant development in the election reform movement known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact plan. Amar explains the why the NPV would benefit voters in all states and why Oregon’s shift in particular is important.

Guest columnist Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law and attorney with an international business practice, comments on the upcoming presidential election in France. Falvy explains the French election process, the contenders for the presidency, and the high stakes of the election.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether states have the authority to mandate tax return disclosure in order to appear on the presidential election ballot—and if they do, whether exercising that authority is a good idea. Amar explains why the legal authority for enacting such laws is unclear and argues that they could potentially undermine the democratic process, whereas a national popular vote would strengthen the process.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar argues that the presidential electors should not elect anyone besides Donald Trump when they cast their ballots on December 19. Amar points out that while there are better way to elect a president than the electoral college, it would be unwise to switch rules after the end of the election and allow independent, unaccountable electors to make decisions based on what they think America wants.

Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda explains the basis for the electoral college and argues that it continues to serve the very purpose it was created to serve, namely to promote efficiency and protect against “tyranny by the majority.”

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar proposes a solution to the problem of the “faithless” elector—a person who pledges to vote in a particular way but then who wants to cast his or her electoral college vote in a different direction. Amar provides specific language that states could implement as law to address these rogue individuals whose actions could alter a presidential election result.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why both major and minor parties would benefit from changing to an instant runoff voting system. As Dorf explains, such a system would allow people to vote for their first-choice candidate (including third parties) without the risk of incidentally aiding their last-choice candidate.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers whether, as Donald Trump claims, the election is “rigged.” Margulies looks specifically at felon disenfranchisement and finds a close correlation between local Republican control and restrictive approaches to voting.

Dean and law professor at Illinois Law, Vikram David Amar describes some of the takeaway points from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on legislative districting, particularly that in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Amar points out that the unexpected death of Justice Scalia in the middle of the term affects at least the reasoning—and perhaps the outcome—of this and many other cases.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, compares and contrasts the presidential impeachment procedures in the United States and Brazil. Amar suggests five ways in which these two large presidential democracies could benefit from more detailed study of the other’s procedures.

University of Illinois dean and law professor Vikram David Amar explains how voters’ hands are tied when it comes to electing a vice president. Amar calls into question this widespread practice and considers whether we might improve the democratic process by changing it.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar examines California’s Proposition 49—which seeks the voters’ approval for the California legislature to ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC—in order to shine light on what might be required to overturn the decision on a federal level. Amar argues that Proposition 49 highlights just how difficult it would be to craft a workable constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as falsely claiming to be self-financing. Rotunda explains what Trump is actually doing with the political donations to his campaign, and why it is not self-financing at all.

University of Illinois College of Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week—Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. As Amar points out, that case lies at the intersection of many contentious aspects of 21st century American democracy, including dissatisfaction with elected officials, partisan zeal, racial equality, and federal–state relations.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda questions the practice of both the Hillary Clinton Campaign and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to employ unpaid interns. Rotunda argues that in both instances, the interns do not receive the type of training or education from the experience that is required in order for an unpaid internship not to violate federal labor laws.

Law professor and dean designate of the University of Illinois College of Law Vikram David Amar provides an update on the so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact plan in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that “legislature”—as used in the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution—includes within its definition the people of a state undertaking direct democracy.

UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein discuss the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act”—a recently proposed California initiative. Amar and Brownstein argue that despite the clear illegality and immorality of the proposed initiative, many of the suggestions that the attorney who proposed it be punished or that the initiative process be altered to prevent these types of initiatives are themselves unconstitutional in some cases, and at best ill-advised in other cases.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the recent oral argument in the Arizona Independent Redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, he points out the lack of attention to the question of standing and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s overly (and erroneously) simplistic view of U.S. history.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion of the Arizona redistricting commission case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Amar considers both the question of standing and the actual merits of the issue presented.