Advertise on podcast: Law & Democracy

hio State Senator Louis W. Blessing, III joins Law & Democracy to make the case for Senate Bill 395, the first bill in any state legislature to propose a form of Consensus Choice voting. The bill would replace Ohio’s partisan primaries with a single primary open to every voter, send the top three finishers to November, and decide the general election through head-to-head matchups among those three. A candidate who beats both opponents wins. No ranking, no runoff, no extra rounds. Senator Blessing traces how his interest in antitrust and money in politics led him to electoral reform, and explains why he voted to ban ranked choice voting in Ohio but kept looking for a reform that could work. He credits former state legislators Gene Krebs and Sean Logan with bringing him the idea, walks through what voters would see on the primary and general election ballots, and describes how results could be tallied in real time on election night. The conversation also covers why he believes independents, who make up the majority of Ohio’s registered voters, stand to gain the most, how open primaries could blunt the influence of big money, what the bill’s prospects look like in the next General Assembly, whether a constitutional amendment for open primaries could serve as a first step, and his separate proposal to expand the size of the Ohio General Assembly. Ned Foley and Senator Blessing also discuss candidate recruitment and retention, including former Senator Rob Portman’s decision not to seek reelection in 2022. Join us on Friday, October 2, 2026 at the Moritz College of Law for a full-day conference on Consensus Choice voting, beginning at 9 a.m. ET. Attend in person or online. This event is approved for 5.75 hours of CLE credit. Event details and online access: go.osu.edu/consensus-choice-voting

Law & Democracy returns for Season 3 with the biggest election law controversy of the 2026 midterms: the Postal Service's new mail-in ballot rules. The hosts sit down with Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and former White House Senior Policy Advisor for Democracy and Voting Rights, to break down where the court fight stands and where it's headed.

How will the Supreme Court’s latest blockbusters reshape the financial and procedural landscape of American elections? In the final episode of season two of Law & Democracy, hosts Tony Gaughan, Steve Huefner, and Ned Foley break down the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, a major campaign finance decision, and Watson v. Republican National Committee, a pivotal ruling on mail-in ballot deadlines. Thank you for listening to Season 2! Like, subscribe, and share if you enjoyed the season. Questions or comments? Drop them below or email [email protected]. Recorded Wednesday, July 1, 2026.

The Law & Democracy co-hosts absolutely scored in this episode! Tony, Ned, Steve, and Terri are taking election law talk to the field—the FIFA World Cup field. Can the world’s biggest sports tournament teach us how to build a better ballot? The panel tackles the intricate mechanics behind FIFA’s group-stage tie-breaker rules and maps them directly onto modern democratic reforms. From debating head-to-head match outcomes against total group performance metrics, they explore how round-robin election structures, ranked-choice ballots, and real-time data tracking can foster a fairer, more expressive voting process for multi-candidate fields. Tune in for a fascinating breakdown of how sports and voting systems collide, proving that understanding complex rules might just be the ultimate goal.

Is the Voting Rights Act still standing? After the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, that’s no longer a rhetorical question—and few people are better positioned to answer it than Dan Tokaji. Tokaji—Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School, a leading election law scholar, and a founding member of Election Law at Ohio State—returns to walk the hosts through how we got here. His verdict is blunt: with Callais, the last major pillar of the VRA has fallen. He traces the line from Shelby County to Brnovich to today, shows how partisanship has quietly become a near-airtight defense against claims of racial discrimination, and names the human cost—fewer Black and Latino lawmakers, especially across the South. But this isn’t a eulogy. Tokaji makes the case for a “lift all votes” strategy aimed at partisan gerrymandering, and points to where change is still possible: state courts, state constitutions, and the ballot box. The conversation digs into what actually keeps this fight alive—what counts as a remedy, whether proportional representation could help, and why some red states are choosing not to redraw their maps at all. He ends where the stakes are highest: with history, and a reason to keep hoping. Guests & Hosts: Prof. Dan Tokaji (Dean and Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School); Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, Steven Huefner, and Terri Enns (Election Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law). Cases referenced: Mobile v. Bolden (1980), Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Brnovich v. DNC (2021), Allen v. Milligan (2023), Louisiana v. Callais (2026). Follow Law & Democracy so you never miss an episode, and a rating or review goes a long way toward helping new listeners find us. Questions or comments? Email [email protected]. Recorded Wednesday, June 17, 2026.

On June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court handed Alabama a major win in its long-running redistricting fight — letting the state use a congressional map with just one Black-majority district, even after a lower court found the map intentionally discriminates against Black voters. Just 48 hours later, the Law & Democracy hosts unpack the 6-3 emergency-docket order in Allen v. Milligan. The conversation centers on the question driving the case: Can race and politics be disentangled? Building on Louisiana v. Callais, the Court has embraced the idea that if a map can be explained by partisanship, racially polarized voting becomes invisible under the Voting Rights Act — even when racial and partisan lines are, in the Deep South, often the same lines. The hosts dig into the Court’s “colorblind” reasoning, its selective use of the Purcell principle, mid-decade redistricting, class and the “diploma divide,” a possible Democratic move to unwind their own majority-minority districts, and what it means for civic health if minority voters feel permanently submerged within larger coalitions. Hosts: Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, Anne Ralph, and Terri Enns — Election Law Program at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Learn more: Allen v. Milligan, Supreme Court order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a1314_7m58.pdf Joey Fishkin, “It’s All Politics,” Election Law Blog: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=156586 Louisiana v. Callais, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Questions or comments? Email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, June 4, 2026.

In this episode of Law & Democracy, hosts Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, and Anne Ralph sit down with leading election law expert Professor Josh Douglas. Recorded just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court released its 92-page opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, the panel breaks down the immediate fallout of the breaking news. Prof. Douglas explains how the ruling makes it incredibly difficult for plaintiffs to bring Section 2 claims under the Voting Rights Act by creating an impossibly high evidentiary burden for racial vote dilution lawsuits. The discussion highlights how the Court is now effectively condoning partisan gerrymandering, allowing states to cut off lawsuits by using partisan goals as a defense against racial gerrymandering claims. Finally, Prof. Douglas touches on his experiences as a visiting scholar in Brazil and shares why, despite a challenging legal landscape, he still considers himself a “Democracy Optimist”. Guests & Hosts: Guest: Prof. Josh Douglas, J. David Rosenberg Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Hosts: Tony Gaughan, Ned Foley, & Anne Ralph from the Election Law Program at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. If you enjoyed this discussion, please don’t forget to like and subscribe to Law & Democracy!

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is currently before Congress. While the House has passed the bill, its future in the Senate remains uncertain due to filibuster rules. What are the legal and practical implications of requiring documentary proof of citizenship for #voter registration? From the potential impact on married women and college students to the increased burdens on volunteer election workers, we explore whether this act solves a real problem or creates a new “nightmare” for #election officials. Hosts: • Terri Enns, James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State • Anthony Gaughan, Professor of Law and Kern Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. • Steve Huefner, C. William O’Neill Professor in Law and Judicial Administration; Director, Legislation Clinic; Deputy Director, Election Law at Ohio State; Director, D.C. Summer Program. • Anne Ralph, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Strategic Initiatives; Morgan E. Shipman Professor in Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. What are your thoughts on the #SAVE Act? Leave a comment below to join the conversation!If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.

We the Voters: Lori Ringhand on the Constitutional Choices We MakeOur system is defined by the choices and compromises made throughout our history, from the halls of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to the modern day struggle for voting rights. Why do we have a Senate? Why is the Electoral College so “weird”? And why are the simple “nuts and bolts” of election administration often the most misunderstood? In this episode, we are thrilled to welcome back our first-ever repeat guest: Lori Ringhand, the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia. She joins the hosts of Law & Democracy to discuss her new book, We the Voters: The Constitutional Choices That Shape America’s Elections. Professor Ringhand takes us on a journey through the evolution of American democracy. We explore how the Declaration of Independence set the stage for representative government, how the Reconstruction amendments expanded the electorate, and how historical tensions between federal and state power continue to fuel contemporary election disputes. Whether you’re an election law expert or a curious voter, this conversation offers a clear, non-partisan look at the rules that define our democracy and the consequences of the choices we’ve made. Learn more about “We the Voters”: https://www.sup.org/books/law/we-voters Guest: • Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. She is a nationally known Supreme Court scholar and the author of We the Voters: The Constitutional Choices That Shape America’s Elections. Hosts: • Anthony Gaughan, Professor of Law and Kern Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State. • Steve Huefner, C. William O’Neill Professor in Law and Judicial Administration; Director, Legislation Clinic; Deputy Director, Election Law at Ohio State; Director, D.C. Summer Program.• Anne Ralph, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Strategic Initiatives; Morgan E. Shipman Professor in Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State.If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, March 18, 2026.

Join the Law & Democracy podcast for an in-depth look at the realities of litigating election law cases. Our guest, Sharon Brett (University of Kansas School of Law), brings years of experience from her time as Legal Director of the ACLU of Kansas to discuss the complex intersection of law, politics, and the rights of voters. In a wide-ranging conversation with hosts Tony Gaughan, Terri Enns, and Matt Cooper, Sharon breaks down the strategic decisions involved in high-profile civil rights litigation. She provides a detailed “from the trenches” account of the 2022 Kansas redistricting case, exploring the partisan and racial dynamics of the “Ad Astra 2” map and the subsequent 5-4 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court. Key topics include: The strategic move toward state constitutional law in the wake of federal restrictions on partisan gerrymandering claims. The factual landscape of the Wyandotte County split and its impact on Black and Latino voting power. A critique of “lockstepping”—the tendency of state courts to mirror federal interpretations rather than exploring independent state constitutional grounds. Lessons learned from first-chairing complex trials and arguing major appeals on the frontlines of democracy. If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. Have questions, thoughts, or comments on the episode? Drop a comment below or email us at [email protected]. Recorded on Wednesday, February 26, 2026.

What if a chief election official wrongfully denies the franchise to thousands of felons when the law very clearly entitles them to vote? Or even blatantly ignores new legislation expanding voting rights simply because they disagree with the law? In his NYU Law Review article, “Unilateral Election Administration,” Professor John Martin of Quinnipiac University School of Law explores the oversight measures to hold chief election officials accountable. Martin notes that these officials wield immense power, enjoying unilateral authority to render decisions affecting voter registration, voting equipment, ballot access, election certification, and official training. But what happens when that power is misused or abused? Law & Democracy co-hosts sit down with Martin to discuss this critical article during a time when the election law arena is increasingly volatile. The conversation paints a comprehensive picture, from explaining the role of a chief election official to assessing the different modes of accountability available to check their power. Recorded on Wednesday, February 4, 2026. #electionlaw #power #democracy

Does the Voting Rights Act have a constitutional expiration date? Columbia Law Professor Kerrel Murray joins the Law & Democracy team to challenge the growing legal theory that Section 2 is a temporary “disparate impact” measure that must eventually end. Join hosts Tony Gaughan, Steve Huefner, and Terri Enns as they discuss with Murray the distinctions between Section 2 and traditional disparate impact claims, the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on race, and what the future holds for voting rights litigation. Recorded on January 12, 2026.

Election law scholarship often operates under key assumptions: that the Supreme Court functions as an “almighty overseer” determining the scope of power for the other branches, and that the states possess “broad authority over elections” that Congress generally should not disturb. In fact, the historical record reveals that Congress possesses “much more power than many people have thought” when it comes to voting and elections. However, many of these powers have “lain dormant for100 plus years,” causing Congress to lose its “muscle memory” for action in this critical space. Leading election law scholar and Dean of the USC Gould School of Law, Franita Tolson, presents a comprehensive historical reappraisal in her forthcoming book, In Congress We Trust? Enforcing Voting Rights from the Founding to the Jim Crow Era. The book attempts to determine if the prevailing assumptions regarding congressional limitations are true. Dean Tolson reveals “a lot of gems that we just don’t talk about” by examining overlooked constitutional provisions, including the Guarantee Clause, Article I, Section 5, and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Dean Tolson joins Law & Democracy to discuss the imperative of recovering this history, asking whether “we should be talking about Congress the same way we talk about the Supreme Court when it comes to the regulations of voting and elections”. This episode explores how understanding Congress’s forgotten power and historical use of “muscle” is crucial for addressing contemporary challenges to American democracy, which Dean Tolson argues is far more fragile than many assume. Speakers: • Franita Tolson, Dean and Carl Mason Franklin Chair in Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.• Edward Foley, Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law; Director, Election Law at Ohio State. • Anthony Gaughan, Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State; Professor of Law and Current Family Chair in Law at Drake University Law School. • Terri Enns, James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law at Ohio State If you enjoy this episode, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Thoughts? Email us at [email protected]. Recorded on December 9, 2025.

Election law expert, Maureen Edobor, delivers an urgent assessment of the VRA's current state in 2025 and explains the deep implications of the pivotal Supreme Court case, Louisiana v. Callais. This case directly challenges a new congressional map designed to remedy vote dilution for Black voters, forcing the Court to confront the fundamental constitutionality of VRA Section 2.

Brad Smith, former Chair of the Federal Election Commission and President of the Institute for Free Speech, joins the Election Law Program at The Ohio State University to discuss the pending Supreme Court case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. Smith outlines the arguments presented in the amicus brief he co-authored, which challenges the constitutionality of limits on coordinated party expenditures and questions the legal foundation of Buckley v. Valeo. The conversation covers: • The legal issues at stake in NRSC v. FEC • The role of political parties in campaign finance • The definition and evidence of corruption under current law • The impact of digital media on campaign practices • Constitutional limits on Congress’s authority to regulate campaigns