Derek Muller

Mail voting is under unprecedented federal pressure heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

New York Times , “District Lines Are Shifting Fast in the South. Voters Are Rattled.” The Atlantic , “The Arc of the Voting Rights Act”

Over the last several weeks, there have been Supreme Court election orders that ultimately affect the rules governing the 2026 election, including the Court's most recent decision in Allen III , reversing the trial court's decision and allowing Alabama's new maps to go forward. A great deal of commentary has attacked these orders for their timing, and perhaps even more for their apparent inconsistency. Here, I offer a qualified defense (with some questions about Allen II ) of these orders, and some context for thinking about orders in the future.

I blogged last month about Dan Sullivan (the Senator) v. Dan Sullivan (a challenger) in Alaska.

The decision and order in California v. Trump in Massachusetts is here . This is on the heels of a decision the other way in the District of Columbia . The Court enjoined both the creation of a “citizenship list” and the requirement that states submit lists of voters before USPS will mail ballots.

The line between manner rules for ballot access, which are acceptable for states to do, and qualifications rules, which states may not add to, can

I have this piece in the Washington Post . It begins: Should voters have to show identification before they cast a ballot?

While it's news from last month, I didn't want to pass over a couple of notable cert denials from the Court.

The divided panel decision in University of South Florida College Republicans v. Secretary of Commerce can be found here . The theory is the 2020

Brian Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt) has this post over at SCOTUSblog This publication has been inundated with essays by academics critical of Louisiana v.