Compiled by Athena Smith.
Articles
Molly Roberts and Loren Voss outlined the findings of the Strategic Threats to Elections and Electoral Legitimacy Working Group, which has spent the past year mapping out the possibility of interference in the elections. Roberts and Voss described the various strategies which could be taken by state, non-state, or federal actors to intervene and how each strategy could be deterred. Even meddling which has no direct impact on election results, the authors noted, may confuse the public.
The group found that any strategy to meddle in the election cannot be understood as a master plan concocted in a smoke-filled room to steal the election in one fell swoop. Instead, the threats are scattered and usually asynchronous, and each could be carried out by one or more of a diverse array of actors—government officials at the federal, state, or local levels; foreign actors; non-state actors. These election-meddling strategies often complement each other, but usually by coincidence. They tend to be uncoordinated.
American Troops at the Polls: A History
Aimee Chun, Tim Vanable, Niharika Vattikonda, and Joshua Villanueva walked through the history of American troop deployments at polling places. The authors analyzed how the Reconstruction period in the antebellum South saw sustained federal deployments to election sites in order to help newly enfranchised Black men vote in elections. They concluded that the following long period of non-intervention built the modern understanding that federal troops have had no role in elections.
The legal regime that evolved over the course of U.S. history is complex, but the modern framework reflects an unequivocal principle: With extremely limited exceptions, the military should have no role in elections. In this piece, we explore the historical context that shaped that evolution. Where has the United States been in the area of election-related military deployments?
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: Why Kyiv Is So Vulnerable to Russian Energy Strikes:Anastasiia Lapatina sat down with Anton Antonenko to discuss the energy infrastructure in Kyiv and why the upcoming winter may be the toughest yet for the Ukrainian capital.
Scaling Laws: Live from Emory Law: Stacey Abrams joins Alex Bores & Kevin Frazier:Kevin Frazier sat down with Alex Bores and Stacey Abrams to discuss Leader Abrahams’s framework for rebuilding democratic power, her efforts to connect people with opportunities to participate, and the role artificial intelligence might play in those efforts.
*Support *Lawfare
*Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon. Sign up to receive *Lawfare
