Featured Post from Tulane University

Challenges to vote count could abound if Biden wins, Tulane legal scholars say

Oct 27, 2020

2 min

Stephen GriffinKeith Werhan

With Election Day looming and voters in both parties concerned about the fairness of the vote-counting process, Tulane University law professors envision multiple challenges should former Vice President Joe Biden oust incumbent President Donald Trump on Nov. 3.


Although Stephen Griffin, a constitutional law expert at the Tulane School of Law, sees little chance, if any, of Trump trying to stop the count in court, that doesn’t mean Trump won’t take action to reverse the results in some states should they not be in his favor, he said.


“Some experts are worried about Trump intervening, not in court, but to lobby Republican state legislatures to simply designate a slate of Republican electors, regardless of the popular vote,” said Griffin, the W. R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law. “I’m afraid there’s a chance this could happen if there is a colorable claim of irregularities in Pennsylvania and possibly elsewhere.”


There is also concern among some Democratic voters about the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to extend the deadline for ballots to be received in Wisconsin because of the COVID-19 pandemic.



He was referring to the high court’s refusal Oct. 26 to lift a lower court ruling preventing the state from counting mail-in ballots as many as six days after the election. The suit was filed by voting rights groups, the state and national Democratic parties and the League of Women Voters.


“With respect to the election, the Supreme Court may uphold measures that are adopted by the states themselves, even if they are late-breaking developments,” Griffin said. “But it has established a consistent pattern of striking down COVID-related election adjustments ordered by federal courts in response to the suits brought by voters and other private parties.”


Such decisions will undoubtedly benefit Republicans, said Keith Werhan, the Ashton Phelps Chair of Constitutional Law Emeritus.


“On the assumption that Democrats will disproportionately use mail-in ballots, the decision likely will benefit Republican candidates in Wisconsin, he said.


He said Republicans could also benefit from any legal disputes that arise on Election Day, though he thinks the aftermath of the Bush v. Gore election controversy could give the Supreme Court pause. He was referring to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that settled a Florida recount dispute in the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.


“I think that the Bush majority suffered a bit from a kind of hubris, thinking that they could resolve the Florida election dispute, and thus the national election, with credibility. Instead, the decision compromised their legitimacy in ways that haven’t fully healed,” Werhan said.


“On the other hand, this, for the most part, is a new Court, and three of the six Republican justices (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) were part of the Bush legal team. So in the end, I don’t think the Republican-appointed justices are going to be shy about playing a role that could decide the election.”




Connect with:
Stephen Griffin

Stephen Griffin

W.R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law

Stephen Griffin specializes in constitutional theory and history

Keith Werhan

Keith Werhan

Professor Emeritus

Keith Werhan specializes in constitutional law, particularly the First Amendment, and in administrative law.

Federal CourtsReligionFirst Amendment LawConstitutional LawFree Speech

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Tulane University

2 min

National survey finds gender and partisan divides in perceptions of women's leadership abilities

A national survey from the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University has found that significant gender and partisan divides persist in perceptions of women's leadership abilities. While the majority of Americans do not believe men make better political leaders than women, there are stark differences in attitudes based on the gender and political ideology of respondents, according to the Institute’s forthcoming #MeToo Harassment Study 2024, which polled more than 3,000 U.S. adults earlier this year. The survey, conducted in partnership with the University of California at San Diego and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, included questions related to domestic violence, sexual harassment and abuse in the past 12 months. It also asked participants how much they agree or disagree with the following statement: “On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do.” This item is used by the World Values Survey to assess this belief in other country contexts. Key findings include: • Only 12% of U.S. adults agree that men make better political leaders than women, far lower than the global average of 50%. • Men are more likely than women to believe that men make better political leaders than women do – 16% of men compared to 10% of women hold this belief. • There is a clear partisan divide, with 26% of very conservative respondents agreeing compared to only 5% of very liberal respondents. • Disagreement with the notion that men make better leaders is highest in progressive states like California, which has relatively higher representation of women in elected office, and lowest in more conservative states like Mississippi. "These findings are concerning, as persistent biases against women's leadership abilities can impede progress in achieving gender parity in political representation," said Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute and professor of global public health at Tulane. Raj said gender inequality in political representation matters because elected female officials are more likely than their male counterparts to introduce and enact bills, and they are more likely to build legislation on key areas affecting women and families, such as childcare, healthcare, paid family leave and sexual harassment in the workplace. The full report, which will be released in September, will dive into experiences of sexual harassment in public and private spaces, including the workplace.

3 min

Rising sea temperatures are pushing Great Barrier Reef to brink

Rising sea temperatures are causing increasing signs of stress and threatening the existence of one of the world's most diverse and valuable marine ecosystems, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, according to a new international study from a team of researchers that includes Tulane University coral reef expert Thomas DeCarlo. The assistant professor of oceanography at Tulane School of Science and Engineering analyzed historical temperature and bleaching patterns at the reef site using underwater drilling to collect coral core samples and CT scans to identify density variations and annual growth bands visible from when coral previously bleached and recovered. DeCarlo’s work, published this month in Nature, documents unprecedented levels of ocean heat leading to bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, endangering a vital marine ecosystem. How is climate change threatening coral reefs across the globe? Corals are animals that live in symbiosis with photosynthetic algae inside their cells. These algae provide most of the energy corals need to survive. When water temperatures are abnormally warm, this symbiosis breaks down. The coral expels the algae, which is called bleaching. The coral turns white as you see the skeleton through the translucent tissues. While bleached corals are still alive, they begin to starve without their symbionts and may die if conditions don't improve quickly. What makes the Great Barrier Reef so unique — and how does it illustrate the urgency of rising sea temperatures? The Great Barrier Reef is the longest continuous reef in the world, near the center of reef biodiversity, with hundreds of coral species. It's a World Heritage Site and an icon for Australia. Key findings observed there include: - The high-temperature events of the past two to three decades are exceptional and unprecedented in the past four centuries. - There's strong statistical confidence that the highest temperature events causing devastating mass coral bleaching in the past decade have no parallel in at least the last 400 years. - We found some evidence of coral bleaching in the late 1800s, which wasn't previously known. - The frequency of mass bleaching has dramatically increased. From 1877 to 1982, there was almost a century between bleaching events. Since 1982, there have been seven mass coral bleaching events, occurring almost every other year recently. - The severity of bleaching has likely increased, and the short time between events doesn't allow for reef recovery. Why are coral reefs so important? Hundreds of millions of people depend on coral reefs for food, economic reasons and livelihood. Reefs also provide tourism revenue, as well as spiritual and aesthetic value. Ecologically, reefs protect shorelines by breaking waves and reducing erosion. As we lose live corals, reefs become flatter and less effective at breaking waves. Reef degradation also leads to loss of biodiversity, as many species depend on specific coral habitats. This impacts fisheries potential and has widespread effects on society and people around the world. How can we protect coral reefs from further damage? The primary action needed is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate models show that the warming trend since the late 1800s is due to human activities. These models can simulate natural climate variability and demonstrate that the temperature events of the past two decades on the Great Barrier Reef would have been impossible without human CO2 emissions. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem exists. Unfortunately, there's still controversy around labeling the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger," despite clear scientific evidence of its deterioration and continued exposure to heat extremes. We need to agree on the danger the reef is in before we can make the hard choices necessary to reduce the speed of climate change. For more on DeCarlo’s work, visit The Sclero Lab at Tulane University. To schedule an interview, contact Stacey Plaisance with Tulane media relations, splaisance@tulane.edu or 504-247-1420.

2 min

Expert available to comment on fallout from plea deal with 9/11 masterminds: “There are no winners here”

Three men held at Guantanamo Bay since 2003 who planned and organized the attacks on New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania that killed nearly 3,000 people on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, have struck a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to all charges and avoid a death-penalty trial. Tulane University expert Muira McCammon, an assistant professor at the School of Liberal Arts, says the plea deal will suppress vital information from families still looking for closure and public accountability from the U.S. government and continue the troubled legacy of Guantanamo Bay. McCammon can discuss: • The impact of not having a trial for the 9/11 masterminds leaves families without closure and the public without a full accounting of the attacks. • How this decision highlights ongoing detention at Guantanamo, raising questions about U.S. commitment to due process. • Gitmo's legacy underscores tensions between national security and respect for human rights and sovereignty. McCammon Quote: “There are no winners here. Many 9/11 families had hoped that there would be a trial, which might’ve given the public more of an opportunity to digest and reflect upon what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew - and the extent of who was involved in coordinating the 9/11 attacks. Many had hoped that these individuals would ultimately be tried in federal court, outside of the grasp of the military commission, which would not have only protected the rights of the detained but might have also reminded the American public that the U.S. is still holding people tied to the terrorist attacks.” Contact Roger Dunaway, assistant director of media relations, for interviews at roger@tulane.edu.

View all posts
Powered by