Rick Hasen
LightNews LightNews
banner
rickhasen.bsky.social
Rick Hasen
@rickhasen.bsky.social
62K followers 610 following 3.7K posts
Professor, UCLA Law; Director, http://SafeguardingDemocracyProject.org; 2020 CNN, 2024 NBC/MSNBC Election Law Analyst; electionlawblog.org
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
rickhasen.bsky.social
Rick Hasen @rickhasen.bsky.social · Sep 30
Very Excited to Announce My New Book Project, “Unbent Arc: The Rise and Decline of American Democracy 1964-2024)” electionlawblog.org?p=152307
I’m very excited to be working on this major project, bringing together my many strands of research on democracy and election law.
Reposted by Rick Hasen
lebassett.bsky.social
So either Trump spoke to Bolsonaro about plotting to escape to the US right before the latter got caught trying to saw off his ankle monitor, or Trump imagined a conversation he didn’t have. Both scenarios are incredibly dark
stevebenen.com Steve Benen @stevebenen.com · 1d
An amazing new Trump controversy, Part II of II:

- Saturday afternoon: Trump says he spoke to Bolsonaro the night before and planned to see him “in the very near future”

- Monday afternoon: The Trump White House isn’t sure whether Trump actually had the conversation he referenced two days earlier
White House hedges on Trump’s curious claim about his call with Brazil’s Bolsonaro White House hedges on Trump’s curious claim about his call with Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro
Did the Republican president talk to Bolsonaro as the Brazilian plotted to escape? Trump said yes, but the White House isn’t so sure.
www.ms.now
November 25, 2025 at 7:28 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
Voting Technology Experts Respond to New York Times Article on Anchorage “Vote by Phone” Experiment electionlawblog.org?p=153263
Voting Technology Experts Respond to New York Times Article on Anchorage "Vote by Phone" Experiment #ELB
The following statement was shared with me from some leading voting technology experts in response to this NY Times article: As experts who have studied online voting for years, we were disturbed to s...
electionlawblog.org
November 26, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mjsdc.bsky.social
NEW: Justice Ziegler has corrected her misquotation of Moore v. Harper. However, her new summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore does not, in my view, accurately reflect the holding. The sentence she quotes doesn't match the "exceedingly limited" paraphrase. www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...
Worse yet, the plaintiffs’ theory disobeys the United States Constitution’s Elections Clause which vests redistricting responsibility exclusively in “the Legislature thereof.” U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 4. As the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the role of state courts in congressional redistricting is exceedingly limited. See Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 36 (2023) (“[S]tate courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”). This lawsuit invites the very judicial meddling that the Constitution prohibits. We see other states invoking fairly interesting procedures to address congressional maps.
November 26, 2025 at 3:58 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Georgia prosecutor kills the historic election interference case against Trump and allies” electionlawblog.org?p=153259
"Georgia prosecutor kills the historic election interference case against Trump and allies" #ELB
CNN: A Georgia prosecutor on Wednesday officially dropped the historic racketeering case against President Donald Trump and others for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, closing th...
electionlawblog.org
November 26, 2025 at 3:58 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
annabower.bsky.social
NEW: Skandalakis is now moving to dismiss Trump’s Georgia case
annabower.bsky.social Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social · 12d
BREAKING: Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, has appointed himself to prosecute the case against Trump and others in Fulton County.

The move follows a court ruling that disqualified Fani Willis from pursuing the case.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ORDERED: That under the authority contained in O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5, Peter J. Skandalakis, Executive Director, Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, or his designee, is hereby appointed to act as District Attorney rat, fortre time pea d beal in i o prostition, a master ta n, arrest or Gran Jury proceedings, whichever comes first, until all appeals are exhausted, the following case, to wit: State v. Donald John Trump, et al., clerk's number 23SC/88947, Fulton County, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5 (c) shall receive no additional compensation for such services except that actual expenses incurred shall be reimbursed by Fulton County at the same rate as provided for district attorneys in O.C.G.A. § 15-18-12. This 14h day of November 2025. Peter J. Skandalakis, Executive Director
November 26, 2025 at 3:54 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“After Trump pressure, Indiana lawmakers shift to convene on redistricting” electionlawblog.org?p=153253
"After Trump pressure, Indiana lawmakers shift to convene on redistricting" #ELB
WaPo: Indiana Republican leaders said Tuesday that the state legislature would reconvene in December to consider redrawing the state’s congressional map, a reversal amid pressure from President Donald...
electionlawblog.org
November 26, 2025 at 3:56 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“How an innocent woman’s name was tied to the Jan. 6 pipe bombs” electionlawblog.org?p=153255
"How an innocent woman's name was tied to the Jan. 6 pipe bombs" #ELB
CBS News: A federal security officer linked to a thwarted Jan. 6 pipe bomb attack cleared her name by providing an alibi: video of her playing with her puppies at the time the devices were placed, sou...
electionlawblog.org
November 26, 2025 at 3:56 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Trump’s Retribution Push Has Expanded Even as It Hits Legal Barriers” electionlawblog.org?p=153257
"Trump’s Retribution Push Has Expanded Even as It Hits Legal Barriers" #ELB
NYT: Shortly before noon on Monday, the Pentagon announced a highly unusual investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, who had infuriated President Trump by saying in a video last wee...
electionlawblog.org
November 26, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
courthousenews.bsky.social
@law.ucla.edu professor @rickhasen.bsky.social talked to Kirk McDaniel about the current state of the U.S. campaign finance system.

@sidebarcns.bsky.social on billionaires' increasing influence on politics: open.spotify.com/episode/5lS4...
November 25, 2025 at 11:39 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
Texas Files Its Reply in Supreme Court in Re-Redistricting Stay Request; Expect an Opinion from SCOTUS Any Time (Maybe Before the Thanksgiving Break?) electionlawblog.org?p=153249
Texas Files Its Reply in Supreme Court in Re-Redistricting Stay Request; Expect an Opinion from SCOTUS Any Time (Maybe Before the Thanksgiving Break?) #ELB
Here’s the reply.
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Why NYC’s Multiparty Politics Feel So Chaotic; The city blends reforms meant to curtail party power with rules designed to enhance it. No wonder the outcomes are messy” electionlawblog.org?p=153247
"Why NYC’s Multiparty Politics Feel So Chaotic; The city blends reforms meant to curtail party power with rules designed to enhance it. No wonder the outcomes are messy" #ELB
Jack Santucci: New York City is becoming the nation’s test case for the latest electoral reform proposal, fusion voting, which allows multiple parties to nominate the same candidate. Advocates say fus...
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 11:11 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
SCOTUS nerds: Is it weird that the State of Texas did not file a reply to its stay motion in the highly time sensitive Texas redistricting case?

www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...
Search
www.supremecourt.gov
November 25, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mjsdc.bsky.social
Question about the dissent by (the far-right) Justice Ziegler: Does this quote actually appear in Moore v. Harper? Did Moore say that state courts' role in congressional redistricting is "exceedingly limited"? I don't think it did! vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media...
Worse yet, the plaintiffs’ theory disobeys the United States Constitution’s Elections Clause which vests redistricting responsibility exclusively in “the Legislature thereof.” U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 4. As the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the role of state courts in congressional redistricting is “exceedingly limited.” Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 34 (2023). This lawsuit invites the very judicial meddling that the Constitution prohibits. We see other states invoking fairly interesting procedures to address congressional maps.
November 25, 2025 at 9:11 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
Conservative Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Complain About Rule Changes and Power within State Supreme Court Done by Court’s New Liberal Majority electionlawblog.org?p=153245
Conservative Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Complain About Rule Changes and Power within State Supreme Court Done by Court's New Liberal Majority #ELB
You can find the opinions starting at page 33 of this pdf. Some of the language here is very touch, and some have said this is just whining by the conservative Justices who have lost power. But put th...
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 9:05 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Wisconsin Supreme Court names judges for challenges to election maps” electionlawblog.org?p=153238
"Wisconsin Supreme Court names judges for challenges to election maps" #ELB
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: The state Supreme Court on Nov. 25 appointed two three-judge panels to hear lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s congressional lines before the 2026 elections. The lawsuits, fi...
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mjsdc.bsky.social
When liberals secured a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, they changed internal procedures—over the objection of the conservative chief justice, who claimed they were taking away her power. Today the justices released MESSY details about the affair...
www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...
BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. (concurring). The Wisconsin Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who are supposed to be members of the same team. Unlike trial courts, when we act, we do so collectively. To accomplish this, over the last 175 years, this court has established various practices and traditions, both formal and informal. These practices ensure all voices are heard, create clear lines of decision-making authority, and establish consistent and neutral processes to govern our case-deciding and administrative work. Some of these are reflected in formally adopted Supreme Court Rules, and some in our Internal Operating Procedures. But the true currency of a court like ours is trust. When trust is broken like it has been here, every aspect of our work suffers. ¶2 This all began in the summer of 2023 when four justices wished to make significant changes to how this court functions. Fair enough. These modifications could have been pursued through a process built on collegiality and mutual respect. Instead, my colleagues pursued a more destructive path. ¶3 The morning our then-newest justice was sworn into office——August 1, 2023——my four colleagues at that time set off to reshape our court and the operation of the court system. They had apparently engaged in significant discussions in the months prior and decided to force through these changes during our summer recess, and to do so via email with or without the input of their other colleagues. They issued a press release triumphantly announcing that these changes were all about transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. This was true in the same way Pearl Harbor was a strike for peace in the Pacific. I will not rehash every detail (Justice Ziegler's excellent writing recounts much of the history), but the reader deserves a taste. ¶4 The first shot sounded when my four colleagues fired the Director of State Courts, who functions as the CEO of administrative matters for the entire judicial branch. Without following any established process, one of my colleagues sent an email proposing that we fire our Director and install a new, preselected interim Director in his place. This happened through email, over the course of two business days, while the Director was out of town on state business, during our summer recess. He never received a performance review indicating concerns; he was simply told his employment was over. This came just months after some of these same colleagues emphasized the importance of having all justices participate in hiring key staff. ¶5 Later that same week, my colleagues proposed dramatic changes via email affecting both our case-deciding and administrative responsibilities. The email invited justices to attend a new, unscheduled meeting of the court later that week to discuss the proposals. One justice said she could not be there; another objected to the meeting as outside our court calendar. The meeting would go forward no matter what, we were told. I implored my colleagues to reconsider, to treat their fellow colleagues with the respect they would want if circumstances were reversed. They refused. The meeting went on as expected, and with only four members present, they voted to fundamentally remake our court. ¶7 Among their changes, my colleagues radically altered the role of the chief justice. They created a new, three-person administrative committee (on which the chief justice would ostensibly sit) to take over nearly all of the chief justice's most important administrative duties. And they did so in the face of serious objections that these changes violated the Wisconsin Constitution, which says the chief justice "shall be the administrative head of the judicial system." Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4. One justice who in the past championed the constitutional role of the chief justice suddenly changed course. Again, these actions stripping the chief justice of powers she had exercised for as long as anyone could remember were proposed via email, and were voted on a few days later during an unscheduled meeting of just four justices during our summer recess. Not exactly transparent, accountable, and inclusive. ¶8 Another significant series of amendments to our internal rules involved modifying the way we consider certain kinds of cases, essentially making it much easier for this court to expedite cases coming to us outside the normal appeals process. Why the change? As everyone understood, my colleagues had the not-sosecret goal of swiftly hearing particular politically charged cases. This was all by design. ¶9 And how did this experiment go? Not well. Administratively, it was not clear who was in charge. We experienced significant breakdowns in communication amidst a lack of clarity about who was doing what. Our staff was often caught in the middle of a court that did not have established lines of communication and authority. And when the Director of State Courts was unceremoniously fired for what many perceived as political reasons, it sent a shockwave through the system. Furthermore, my colleagues' changes were not one and done. Throughout the past two years, they continued to modify the court's procedures in a similar ad-hoc fashion, often after realizing problems with their earlier ill-considered changes. This only added to the confusion. ¶10 Finally, at one of the court's internal conferences this past June, my colleagues shifted course. One of the four announced she was "withdrawing" her prior votes from the past two years (which, by the way, is not a thing) with the idea that every disputed change was now, all of a sudden, reversed. What changed? Again, it was no mystery. My colleagues wanted to take power away from then-Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. Such a move ensured that my colleagues would run the court through the administrative committee. Following the April 2025 election, they concluded they would have the votes to elect a chief justice of their choosing and have a block of votes to support her, so they no longer needed to seize those powers. This is not a cynical take. It is exactly what happened. ¶11 What's past is past, however. I have no desire to hold this against my colleagues, and I am grateful they have changed course. In fact, I was happy to work collaboratively on many operational changes reflected in this order, most of which I
November 25, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: In Judge Boasberg's contempt inquiry, Plaintiffs include Emil Bove, now a Third Circuit judge, on their list of potential witnesses. Others include Erez Reuveni and Drew Ensign—both of whom Boasberg mentioned as likely witnesses—and Yaakov Roth, a senior official in DOJ's Civil Division.
Second, once these declarations are filed and depending on what information they disclose, the Court should then determine the appropriate sequence of witness testimony, and the manner in which that testimony should be provided. At this initial stage, Plaintiffs list as potential witnesses only those identified in the whistleblower disclosure of Erez Reuveni, former Acting Deputy 1 Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 193 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4 Director of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") Office of Immigration Litigation ("OIL"), see ECF 158-1 ("Reuveni Disclosure"): 1. Former Acting Deputy Director of OIL Erez Reuveni 2. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign 3. Former Acting Director of OIL August Flentje 4. Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry 5. Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins 6. Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security James Percival 7. Acting General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security Joseph Mazzara 8. Former Acting Assistant Attorney General (now Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General) Yaakov Roth 9. Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove
November 25, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mjsdc.bsky.social
This is the same playbook the Trump administration ran in Portland, where DHS officials falsely accused local police of failing to help them (or not arriving quickly enough). Strikes me as a problem that the government lies so freely to the Supreme Court now. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/u...
The Trump administration made erroneous claims to the Supreme Court, mischaracterizing the responsiveness of local police and the actions of protesters in a filing asking the justices to sign off on the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops to Chicago, a New York Times investigation found. The emergency request, filed by the solicitor general, D. John Sauer, which draws heavily from court declarations made by two Homeland Security officials, misstates what happened in the aftermath of a car crash and shooting on Oct. 4 in Chicago that involved Border Patrol agents. A Times analysis of hours of police radio and hundreds of videos posted to social media refutes the federal government’s claims that the Chicago Police Department didn’t respond quickly to the scene, leaving federal agents to fend for themselves during what they called a riot.
November 25, 2025 at 8:12 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
Second Edition of “Understanding Election Law and Voting Rights” Now Available electionlawblog.org?p=153226
Second Edition of "Understanding Election Law and Voting Rights" Now Available #ELB
Just published: Understanding Election Law and Voting Rights Second Edition by Michael R. Dimino, Bradley A. Smith, Michael E. Solimine 2025
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:43 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“‘Not a turf war’: GOP lawmakers say they’ll appeal Utah’s new congressional map to the Supreme Court” electionlawblog.org?p=153230
"‘Not a turf war’: GOP lawmakers say they’ll appeal Utah’s new congressional map to the Supreme Court" #ELB
Salt Lake Tribune: Responding to a stinging legal defeat in the state’s redistricting battle, Utah Republican legislators said Tuesday that they will convene a special session Dec. 9 to put a constitu...
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:42 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Man accused of double voting in 2020 election says Trump pardon applies to him” electionlawblog.org?p=153232
"Man accused of double voting in 2020 election says Trump pardon applies to him" #ELB
Carter Walker for Votebeat.
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:42 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“Welcome to the Gerrymandering Apocalypse” electionlawblog.org?p=153234
"Welcome to the Gerrymandering Apocalypse" #ELB
Marc Novicoff for The Atlantic.
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:42 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
“SCOTUS to takes sides in redrawing push that could impact 2026 voting” electionlawblog.org?p=153236
"SCOTUS to takes sides in redrawing push that could impact 2026 voting" #ELB
Bart Jansen for USA Today:  At President Donald Trump’s urging, Texas is trying to send even more Republicans to represent it in the U.S. Congress. To pull that off, the country’s most populous Republ...
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:41 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
It’s Not You, It’s Me (Election Law Blog Has Been Down, Apparently from a DDOS Attack) electionlawblog.org?p=153224
It's Not You, It's Me (Election Law Blog Has Been Down, Apparently from a DDOS Attack) #ELB
Been a while since we’ve had one of those. Hopefully it’s back to smooth sailing.
electionlawblog.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mikesacks.bsky.social
The lawyer who wrote this brief was a favorite clerk of Chief Justice Roberts and then-Judge Kavanaugh, who are both typically very hostile to campaign finance regulations.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
Petitioners and the FEC want this Court to stretch—along every possible dimension—to advance their project of derailing decades of campaign-finance law enacted by Congress and upheld by the Judiciary. Their reply briefs underscore just how badly they want the Court to abandon traditional principles of justiciability and restraint. But there is no real-world Article III controversy here, and petitioners are not proper parties in any event. The Court should reject jurisdiction or dismiss the petition as improvidently granted.
November 24, 2025 at 10:40 PM