Democracy on the Ground Floor: Law Schools Lend a Hand on Election Day

There is no better view of the trenches of democracy than the polling place.

Most of the time, these trenches are surprisingly heartwarming.  Good people volunteer to serve as pollworkers, spending hour after hour helping their neighbors vote — all equal at the ballot box, regardless of background or station.  It’s a wondrous act of performing Americana.

This is the norm.  But it is not universal.  Some voters encounter rudeness, discrimination, misinformation, or even violence.  Some confront lengthy lines, linguistic barriers, or regulatory roadblocks.  Some are stymied by willful obstruction; some are stymied by mistake.  Some are sent away; some are sent away unlawfully.  The law on the books is not always the law on the ground — and the decisions a pollworker makes are exceedingly difficult to undo.

Voters’ experiences at the polls have systemic impact.  Pollworkers are the stewards of democracy on the front lines of every fair result.  And studies show that when voters feel good about their interactions with pollworkers, they feel more confident about the electoral system.  A helpful pollworker can turn occasional voters into every-time voters.

We have worked within, and helped to run, multiple national efforts ensuring that eligible voters could vote and have those votes counted.  We recognize just how important pollworkers can be.

And we also know that it can be hard to find good ones.  They face long hours of hard work for a rather humble stipend.  Many officials struggle to recruit and train enough people to take on the job.

So we thought law schools should lend a hand.  And we thought we’d start with Los Angeles, the largest election jurisdiction in the country, with some of the most profound need.

This year, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, has canceled classes on election day, freeing its students to serve as pollworkers, placed and trained in partnership with the county.  For the students, it’s a rare opportunity to become government officials for a day, getting meaningful experience in applying a multilayered regulatory scheme to real people on the ground.

For the community, it’s an even bigger win.  Loyola is built on a social justice mission that the students take seriously; their legal training, problem-solving ability, and technological savvy make them ideal candidates to staff the polls.  Loyola students are as diverse as the county they serve, with 17 different languages among the corps of volunteers.  They will be fanning out across the jurisdiction, to the polling locations where county officials have historically had the most difficulty recruiting.

Loyola’s efforts build on those at Northwestern Law two years ago.  And with the help of organizations like the American Constitution Society and the Leadership Conference Education Fund, we hope that a successful pilot this year helps to take the program national for 2020.

Universities across the country can lend a tangible hand to the election process by creating opportunities for their students to serve as pollworkers.  And at the same time, they’ll be providing their students with an unparalleled educational opportunity.  There is no better way to see what democracy looks like.

Justin Levitt is a law professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Molly Greene is a Loyola alumna.  They have both helped to run nonpartisan operations to protect the voting rights of eligible citizens and promote a fair and efficient election process.

More Than 30 State Attorneys General Are Up for Election in 2018. Their Races Are Even More Important Than You Think.

As Election Day approaches, the national political conversation has centered more and more on Congressional elections. Commenters across the political spectrum claim that the results of House and Senate races in contested districts will shape the future of the country for years, possibly decades. This may very well be the case. But Capitol Hill isn’t the only battleground for policy with national implications, as state attorneys general demonstrate every day.

State attorneys general serve as the “people’s prosecutor,” legally representing the interests of the government and citizens of their respective states. Traditionally, this responsibility has structured the offices of attorneys general around core enforcement issues such as consumer protection and antitrust. But the authority of state attorneys general is by no means limited to these areas; in fact, attorneys general can act on almost any issue that they feel is important to their state, by initiating investigations and bringing lawsuits on behalf of their state(s). They can even sue the federal government for actions they feel would violate the sovereign interests of their states, or that impact the health, safety and security of their states’ residents.

But that’s not all. Aside from enforcement, state attorneys general often submit sign-on letters or comments to federal agencies and officials on proposed rules or policy initiatives, convene task forces to address systemic issues, propose bills to their state legislature, testify in Congress and issue guidance or formal opinions to state agencies and officials to clarify their legal responsibilities.

In addition, state attorneys are directly elected in 43 states, creating a system of divided executive power in which they have independent authority and are accountable not to a governor who appointed them, but rather, the constituents who elect them. In fact, there are currently twelve state attorneys general who are of a different political party than their state’s governor.

Thus, the office of the state attorney general is both nimble and powerful, one that can work independently or as a member of a coalition of peers and expand its authority to match the perceived needs of the moment through investigations, lawsuits, public statements and the bully pulpit. The opioids epidemic, sexual harassment and abuse, climate change, healthcare, police reform, big data and privacy are just some of the issues that state attorneys general are involved in and having an impact.

Through their individual and collective actions, the offices of attorneys general are acting locally, but thinking globally. Thirty states and the District of Columbia will hold elections for state attorney general on Tuesday, and twelve of these elections are for open seats. Voters would be wise to focus on the actions of their state’s top legal official, and to keep the importance of state attorneys general in mind come Election Day.

Republicans Hold Second Judicial Nominations Hearing During Recess

Last week the Senate held a hearing on six of President Trump’s circuit court nominees. Tomorrow the Senate will hold a hearing on three additional judicial nominees for the lower courts. These hearings are being held during recess when most committee members are in their home states.

This has never been done before without the consent of the minority and is the latest example of the Senate GOP’s willingness to break norms and bend the rules to force President Trump’s judicial nominees onto the bench. For more background, view our fact sheet, Judicial Nominations: A Broken Process and How You Can Protect the Courts.

As we said last week, the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership is proceeding with these hearings under these circumstances makes a mockery of the Senate’s advise and consent role.

Details about this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

  • The hearing will be at 10 am. Watch here.
  •  A total of five nominees are going to testify; A total of five nominees are going to testify; including the following two Circuit Court nominees and  District Court nominee:
    • Bridget S. Bade (9th Cir., Ariz.) (Both blue slips received; No ABA rating yet)
    • Eric Miller (9th Cir., Wash.) (No blue slips received; No ABA rating yet)
    • Karin Immergut (D. Or.) (Both blue slips received; No ABA rating yet)

For more information, view our fact sheet, Judicial Nominations: A Broken Process and this page of other resources.

For the Public Good: Pro Bono Work at ACS

Why should people get involved in pro bono work?

An important aspect of the legal profession is engaging in pro bono work. Not only is it included in professional conduct rules, but more importantly, lawyers and law students have valuable skills that can improve the lives of those who would otherwise be unable to get the help they need. In the last two years especially, we’ve seen how lawyers doing pro bono work have reached an almost superhero status working on everything from immigration to voting cases. ACS members should be particularly motived to get involved because pro bono engagement aligns perfectly with ACS’s founding principle: that the law should be a force to improve the lives of all people.

What kinds of lawyers are needed for pro bono work?

All types of lawyers are needed for pro bono work. Depending on an individual’s skill set and interests, we can find the perfect opportunity for them to get involved. Some pro bono projects require prior experience, but many do not and supervision and mentoring are usually available. Opportunities range from doing legal research to taking on cases. If someone is unsure about where to start, I’m happy to chat about a range of available projects and find something that works specifically for them.

Can law students get involved?

Yes! Law students are some of our best volunteers. Because law students aren’t barred attorneys, the type of projects might be more limited, but we always have legal research opportunities available and often opportunities for law students to work with licensed attorneys.

How much time is required?

Pro bono volunteers can contribute anything from a few hours of work to much, much more. One of the first things I discuss with interested volunteers is their time constraints to make sure we find the perfect project to work with their schedule.

What opportunities does ACS offer in terms of pro bono work?

ACS has many ongoing projects where we need volunteer help. Some of those projects include our Notice and Comment Project, Constitution in the Classroom, Love our Constitution, voting projects, and more. We also work regularly with our coalition partners to find pro bono help for their efforts. New opportunities are constantly available and I’m always willing to chat about the exciting things we are working on. Those who are interested can also check out the volunteer opportunities section on ACS’s website. We regularly post selected opportunities there.

How can lawyers/law students get involved in ACS’s pro bono efforts?

Lawyers and law students who want to get involved can sign-in via our online form here or email LCEmails@acslaw.org. Once they reach out, we provide more information about specific projects and often set up calls to talk with individuals about finding the best fit for them.

Five Ways the White House and Senate Have Broken the Judicial Confirmation Process

Update 10/25: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a second hearing during recess, attended by only two senators.

Last week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced confirmation of 15 lower court nominees by threatening to cancel recess ahead of the midterm elections to confirm all judicial nominees waiting for votes. This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving forward with a hearing on 6 lower court nominees, despite the fact that all other Senate Committees are canceling their meetings during this recess and that Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) has stated her opposition.

View ACS's statement on this unprecedented power grab.

These 6 lower court nominees being considered in the hearing are: Allison Rushing (4th Cir., N.C.), Wendy Berger (M.D. Fla.), Thomas Barber (M.D. Fla.), Corey Maze (M.D. Ala.), Rodney Smith (S.D. Fla.), and T. Kent Wetherell (N.D. Fla.).

This hearing is further evidence that the White House and Senate majority are willing to break norms and traditions to transform the lower courts, which are the last resort for most legal cases.

Since 2017, the Senate Majority has confirmed more than 80 nominees to lifetime appointments, 29 of them to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. It has done this by completely disregarding the Senate’s “advice and consent” role, circumventing the usual vetting process for nominees being considered for lifetime appointments.

Here are five ways the White House and Senate have broken the process to confirm many concerning nominees to lifetime positions:

  1. Advice & Consent: The White House has ignored home-state Senator advice and consent. Just last week, President Trump nominated three individuals for vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California, ignoring input from Senators Feinstein and Harris.
  2. Blue Slips: The long-standing tradition of the Senate Judiciary Committee is that the Chair would only proceed with a confirmation hearing for those nominees who receive both of their home-state Senators’ support in the form of a physical blue piece of paper, the “blue slip.” Chair Chuck Grassley has held hearings for five nominees over objections of home-state Senators, including last week for two nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit who did not receive blue slips from Senator Sherrod Brown.
  3. ABA Ratings: Since 1989, all but one Administration provided the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary an opportunity to independently review potential nominees’ qualifications and temperament pre-nomination. This Congress, three nominees have received unanimous Not Qualified ratings, and an additional 13 nominees at least partially Not Qualified ratings. Allison Rushing, one of the nominees on the schedule for the hearing this week, has not practiced the requisite 12 years to meet the ABA’s Qualified threshold and has not even received a rating for the Committee members to consider.
  4. Lack of Thorough Vetting: The White House has sacrificed thorough vetting in favor of rapidly confirming nominees. Numerous nominees have had embarrassing writings and speeches come to light post-nomination. Brett Talley, nominated to serve in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, had to withdraw after failing to include in his questionnaire Senate Judiciary Questionnaire his extensive blogging arguing the purity of the KKK’s founding.
  5. Stacking Hearings: Senators only have five minutes to question each judicial nominee included in a hearing. To speed up confirmation of the President’s judicial nominees, Senator Grassley has already scheduled seven hearings that included multiple U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominees. By comparison, this only occurred three times in the entirety of President Obama’s tenure.

For more information, view our fact sheet, Judicial Nominations: A Broken Process and this page of other resources.

Legal Scholars Warn Senate of Kavanaugh’s Recusal Issues

Today, 100 legal scholars led by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe sent an open letter to the U.S. Senate registering their concern that Judge Kavanaugh would have to recuse himself from many cases were he to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The lawyers explain that Judge Kavanaugh has expressed views that would require his recusal from “a very broad slice of the Supreme Court’s docket during his lifetime tenure as a justice. That would leave the court evenly split in far too many cases, for years on end, if he were to recuse himself as required—or deeply damaged in the public’s trust if he were not.”

Read the lawyers letter