Two separate pieces related to court issues. To read the full columns, follow the links embedded in each headline.
Former AG’s write ABC about debates (Aug. 27): Credit four former attorneys general of the United States for insisting that issues related to the Supreme Court should play a prominent role in this fall’s presidential election.
The four former top legal officers of the U.S., all Republicans, sent a letter Tuesday morning to ABC network executives saying the network’s moderators for the scheduled Sept. 10 presidential debate should ask two court-related questions. Their letter said that so far in this campaign, “the presidential candidates have had little opportunity to explain their stances” on Supreme Court topics.
Noting that “multiple measures have been proposed to transform the Court,” mostly by liberal Democrats, former Attorneys General William Barr, Ed Meese, Mike Mukasey, and Jeff Sessions wrote that one of those measures, “to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court by adding additional justices to the bench,” would “require only a majority vote in Congress” (and a president’s signature), and thus is very much in play politically. Quite simply, then, they said the moderators should ask the two candidates, “What is your position on expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court?”….
Courts reward those pushing for honest elections (Aug. 26): Chalk up two more wins, or at least 1 1/2, for voting integrity. Last week in both Arizona and Nevada, plaintiffs won decisions forcing states to tighten procedures against possible vote fraud.
The more prominent case was from Arizona, where the Supreme Court gave a significant victory, even if one that was only both partial and interim, to the avatars of honest elections. At issue is whether states, at least for purposes of state (rather than federal) elected offices, can require proof of citizenship for anyone to register to vote. This means, more broadly, whether states can impose tighter requirements for voting integrity than federal law requires, assuming there are no invidiously discriminatory effects.
At least for purposes of the 2024 election, the Supreme Court said Arizona can indeed require proof of citizenship….
