Our Work

"The Supreme Court is supposed to rule by the law alone, but that doesn't always happen. Has the Supreme Court always been political?"

"This week, the public has the chance to weigh in on the proposed legislative maps drawn by Gov. Tony Evers’ redistricting panel. We look at what the new districts may mean for control of the state Legislature and Wisconsin’s representation in Congress, as well as what’s next in the process."

This Article introduces the concept of “gerrylaundering” to describe mapmakers’ efforts to lock-in their favorable position by preserving key elements of the existing map. Gerrylaundering and gerrymandering both serve anti-competitive ends, but they do so through different means. Unlike gerrymandering, gerrylaundering requires no conspicuous cracking and packing of disfavored voters. Instead, it involves what this Article dubs locking and stocking: Mapmakers lock in prior district configurations to the extent possible and stock each new district with one incumbent. Based on a review of redistricting practice in all fifty states, this Article concludes that gerrylaundering is widespread and that self-serving mapmakers commonly combine gerrylaundering and gerrymandering techniques in varying proportions to achieve their preferred results.

"One year ago, America’s governors were having a moment. Covid-19 cases were rising, federal leadership was absent and much of the responsibility for fighting the pandemic fell on their shoulders."

This Article explains how state legislatures are almost always a state’s least majoritarian branch. The combination of districting itself, geographic clustering, and extreme gerrymandering mean that state legislatures are recurrently controlled by the state’s minority party. Indeed, the article finds that minority-party rule has afflicted state legislative chambers hundreds of times in the modern era. In contrast, state governors and state courts are overwhelmingly chosen via simple statewide elections, with no electoral college or lifetime appointment. This reframing destabilizes conventional narratives about state government and opens a host of broader inquiries.

"Election certification happens after every general election. This year, it’s looking to be costly."

"As states continue to tabulate votes, the Trump campaign is suing to stop counts in two states and requesting a recount in Wisconsin. An election law expert joins us to talk about the potential for lawsuits and what the Constitution says about the timeline for certifying election results."

In recent years, antidemocratic behavior has rippled across the nation. Lame-duck state legislatures have stripped popularly elected governors of their powers; extreme partisan gerrymanders have warped representative institutions; state officials have nullified popularly adopted initiatives. The federal constitution offers few resources to address these problems, and ballot-box solutions cannot work when antidemocratic actions undermine elections themselves. This Article argues that a vital response has been neglected: state constitutions.

Amid ongoing concerns about foreign electoral interference and fake news, digital platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have been rolling out new political advertising policies for the 2020 election cycle. These emergent policies address what sort of ads are permissible, who can run them, how particular audiences can be targeted, and what disclosures and disclaimers must be made. This Essay aims to draw attention to the rise of platform self-regulation of political advertising and to encourage inquiry into its implications.

Governmental power in the United States has always been divided between the federal government and state governments, each providing a check on the other. As states face controversial federal government actions, they are pursuing or considering an array of options in response.

In a series of ongoing projects, we are examining some of the potential tools states have to help counter federal abuses of power. These studies aim to provide in-depth legal background and context for anyone interested in learning more about how our federalist system creates space for and seeks to manage confrontations between states and the federal government. Questions considered include whether states prosecute federal officials, states can create damages remedies against federal officials, and states can prohibit federal law enforcement from masking on the job?