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.

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email

Final action is expected soon on a plan that would prevent North Dakota cities and counties from using alternative voting methods for local elections.

Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill that focuses on two options - ranked-choice voting and approval voting.

In recent election cycles, Fargo has used approval voting when local candidates appear on the ballot. It became the first U.S. city to do so, after residents showed support for the idea.

Bismarck resident Andrew Alexis Varvel testified against banning these options.

"The rest of the state does not need to follow everything that Fargo does," said Varvel, "but we do need to have a certain amount of respect for what people at the local level decide."

Other bill opponents also said they don't want the state micromanaging local elections.

The Fargo-endorsed option, approval voting, allows voters to choose more than one candidate. Backers say it reduces polarization by prompting candidates to appeal to more people.

But some lawmakers believe these approaches are ineffective, and want the whole state to use the same voting method.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong hasn't indicated whether he'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe supports the proposed ban on alternative voting methods.

In his testimony, he noted that Fargo's use of approval voting hasn't created any issues, but he said he worries other cities will follow suit.

"Multiple election methods implemented across the state," said Howe, "would have an impact on the administration of a statewide election."

But a Fargo City Commissioner argues that across North Dakota, there are already many variations - including at-large candidates.

A similar proposed ban was vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum two years ago.




get more stories like this via email

A number of lawsuits have been filed in opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order which could reshape how U.S. elections are run and the League of Women Voters of Arizona is one of the groups fighting back.

Pinny Sheoran, president of the group, said democracy is not just on the line, it is actively being broken. Trump's executive order would usher in new requirements, such as having voters provide in-person documentary proof of citizenship and identity. Sheoran called the president's action unconstitutional and illegal.

"Even the states serving as a buttress against the breaking of democracy is greatly under threat, in Arizona, specifically," Sheoran stated.

The White House has defended the president's executive order and called the measures "common sense," and all objections "insane." But Sheoran contends the executive order will suppress voters and enact "unnecessary hoops," making it harder for Arizonans to make their voices heard.

Sheoran argued the directive from the White House will disproportionately affect Arizonans across the board, including people of color, those in rural communities, those with disabilities and women.

She pointed out more than 1.5 million women in the state have changed their last name after marriage, which means many will not have a birth certificate matching their legal identity. Nationwide, the issue grows exponentially.

"For those 61-plus million women, we are talking about many of them, (a) not having a passport; (b) having to now prove why their ID has got a different name than the ID that they registered in," Sheoran outlined.

Sheoran stressed the importance of highlighting the narrative of how the "disastrous" order will affect everyday Arizonans.

"What makes sense to the general public, to the women who don't watch Fox News or MSNBC, is, 'Oh, I can't vote with my voter ID?' 'What, I've been voting, I am 70 years old, I've been voting for almost 50 years, and now you're telling me I can't vote?'" Sheoran underscored. "Think about those conversations."