Inside America’s Election Machinery: Rick Hasen Explains the Legal Fights, Redistricting Chaos, and Presidential Overreach Shaping 2026
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from November 5, 2025 | Can Democracy Hold? The 2026 Midterm Challenge. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, UCLA professor of law and political science Rick Hasen—one of the country’s most respected election law scholars—joined moderator Larry Mantle to break down the hidden systems that shape how American elections really work. Their conversation explored the legal architecture governing redistricting, the escalating use of partisan and racial gerrymandering, the limits of presidential power, and the structural vulnerabilities that could define the 2026 and 2028 election cycles.
Gerrymandering, Strategy, and the Science Behind Mapmaking
Hasen began with a clear-eyed explanation of how partisan gerrymandering has evolved into a sophisticated political tool. California’s recent Proposition 50—which temporarily replaces the state’s independent redistricting commission for congressional maps with a Democratic-drawn plan—illustrates how both parties are now fully participating in an escalating national “arms race.”
States like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida have already used their unified Republican control to lock in additional GOP seats. Prop 50 is California’s countermove, driven primarily by partisanship rather than race, and designed to offset GOP advantages elsewhere.
Still, Hasen noted that Republicans hold more legislatures and therefore more opportunities to manipulate maps. Even as California Democrats maximize their influence, GOP-led states may ultimately benefit more in aggregate. Yet strategy cuts both ways: forcing incumbents to run in less-safe districts can create backlash, especially in a potential Democratic wave election.
The Supreme Court’s Contradictory Demands: Race, Party, and Impossible Distinctions
A major portion of the discussion focused on the Supreme Court’s confusing and often contradictory redistricting jurisprudence. The Court has explicitly refused to police partisan gerrymandering, but it does regulate racial gerrymandering—even though race and party are highly correlated in many states.
The result, Hasen explained, is an “absurd” legal test: courts must determine whether mapmakers were motivated by race or partisanship, even when those motivations are practically inseparable. In states like Louisiana, where over 90% of Black voters support Democrats and most white voters support Republicans, disentangling motives becomes an academic exercise detached from reality.
This creates bizarre courtroom dynamics. Litigants now use AI and computer simulations to generate millions of alternate maps in an attempt to prove whether a legislature could have achieved the same partisan results without prioritizing race. Cases move directly from three-judge panels to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the Court is repeatedly asked to decide disputes that stem from its own contradictory standards.
Timing Is Everything: Why the Purcell Principle Shapes Election Outcomes
Another structural constraint is the Purcell principle, the doctrine that courts should avoid changing election rules too close to an election. While originally intended to prevent voter confusion, the Supreme Court has gradually expanded the doctrine to block court interventions even nine months out.
This matters because most redistricting lawsuits take months to litigate. Even if Republicans successfully argue that California’s new map is a racial gerrymander, Hasen doubts any court would halt the maps before 2026. More likely, they would remain in place until at least 2028, shaping the battlefield for upcoming elections regardless of their legality.
Presidential Overreach and the Limits of Executive Power
Hasen also addressed former President Trump’s efforts to influence election administration through executive orders, pressure on federal agencies, and public rhetoric. Constitutionally, presidents have almost no authority to regulate elections; that power lies with states and Congress. A recent federal court ruling affirming this limitation struck down Trump’s attempt to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms.
Yet Hasen warned that what presidents can’t do legally, they might attempt extralegally: sending federal agents into heavily Democratic cities on Election Day, publicly questioning the legitimacy of results, or using DOJ investigations as political theater. These tactics may suppress turnout or intimidate local election workers even if they lack legal grounding.
The Greatest Emerging Threat: Proof-of-Citizenship Laws
Among the many election rules under debate, Hasen identified one as the most potentially harmful: documentary proof-of-citizenship laws. Unlike voter ID laws, which generally require a simple photo ID, these laws require voters to provide passports, birth certificates, or naturalization documents to register.
In Kansas, a similar requirement disenfranchised 30,000 eligible voters before a federal court struck it down. With the U.S. House already passing the SAVE Act—legislation requiring such documentation nationwide—Hasen warned that future federal action could dramatically shrink the electorate.
Protecting Democracy Through Local Engagement
Despite the daunting landscape, Hasen closed with a message of empowerment. America’s decentralized election system—while chaotic—also provides numerous opportunities for civic involvement. Individuals can strengthen democracy by serving as poll workers, registering voters, supporting election administrators, and promoting early voting in their communities.
The legal battles, court doctrines, and partisan maneuvering matter deeply, Hasen emphasized. But ordinary citizens—working locally and persistently—remain one of the strongest defenses against democratic backsliding.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.