Stephen Spaulding
As seen in:
Medium,
MSN,
HuffPost,
USA Today,
Los Angeles Times,
NBC News,
U.S. News and World Report,
POLITICO,
The Hill,
Yahoo
and
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Stephen Spaulding
What the Voting Rights Act Can Teach About Supreme Court Reform
The Roberts Court’s hostility to the Voting Rights Act is well documented. But there is a different lesson to draw as we mark the 61st anniversary of the landmark civil rights law this week. Our governing institutions, including the Supreme Court, must not become so powerful that they undermine core democratic principles.
Model State Resolution Urging 18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
For much of our nation’s history, the Supreme Court played a modest role in our system of checks and balances, and was bound by the principle of judicial restraint. That is no longer the case. Over the past few decades, the Court has become defined by a series of polarizing decisions that have taken away constitutional rights and grossly expanded presidential power.
Supreme Court Term Limits Are Constitutional
Supreme Court reform is increasingly receiving attention from members of the public, political leaders, and scholars. One of the leading proposals is the adoption of 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Rooted in the principle that no one should have so much public power for life, Supreme Court term limits enhance the Court’s democratic accountability while also preserving judicial independence.
Florida High Court to Hear Arguments in Politicized “Voter Fraud” Case
The case challenges Gov. Ron DeSantis’s prosecutions of people with felony convictions who thought they were eligible to vote. The Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in Hubbard v. State of Florida, a case challenging the legality of one of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s prosecutions for alleged voter fraud.
Voting Rights and Democracy in State Courts
The following is a transcript of the panel “Voting Rights and Democracy in State Courts”, which took place at Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, on Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025, as part of the symposium, The Power of State Constitutional Rights. The transcript is edited for clarity.
Tennessee
Tennessee’s highest court is the Tennessee Supreme Court. The court has four justices and one chief justice, who is chosen by a majority of the court’s members. (Source: Tennessee Constitution) Judicial Selection The governor nominates Tennessee Supreme Court justices from a list provided by a judicial nominating commission. The governor’s nominee must be confirmed by a majority of the state House and Senate.
Supreme Court and Election Law Still Feel the Fallout 25 Years After Bush v. Gore
Visitors to the Smithsonian in Washington can marvel at many artifacts that reflect our country’s story. One item on display changed the course of history itself: the “butterfly ballot” that Palm Beach County, Florida, used in the 2000 presidential election. In December of that year, the Supreme Court stopped the state’s recount, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. But for that poorly designed ballot — and the resulting 5–4 decision — Al Gore would have become president. What’s more, Bush v.
Missouri
Missouri’s highest court is the Supreme Court of Missouri. The court has six judges and one chief justice, who is selected for a two-year term by the other members of the court. (Source: Missouri Supreme Court Judges) Judicial Selection The governor appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Missouri from a list provided by a judicial nominating commission.
25 Years After Bush v. Gore, Supreme Court and Election Law Still Feel the Fallout
Visitors to the Smithsonian in Washington can marvel at many artifacts that reflect our country’s story. One item on display changed the course of history itself: the “butterfly ballot” that Palm Beach County, Florida, used in the 2000 presidential election. In December of that year, the Supreme Court stopped the state’s recount, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. But for that poorly designed ballot — and the resulting 5–4 decision — Al Gore would have become president. What’s more, Bush v.
Supreme Court and Election Law Still Feel the Fallout 25 Years After Bush v. Gore
Visitors to the Smithsonian in Washington can marvel at many artifacts that reflect our country’s story. One item on display changed the course of history itself: the “butterfly ballot” that Palm Beach County, Florida, used in the 2000 presidential election. In December of that year, the Supreme Court stopped the state’s recount, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. But for that poorly designed ballot — and the resulting 5–4 decision — Al Gore would have become president. What’s more, Bush v.
Strategic Retirements Hurt the Supreme Court. Term Limits Would End Them.
Speculation about whether a Supreme Court justice will retire tends to pick up with the approach of the end of June, when the high court releases the last of its opinions for the term and begins its summer recess. The timing of a justice’s retirement from the Supreme Court can affect the law and people’s lives for decades. Because justices are appointed for life, they are empowered to decide when to leave the bench.
How Elections Are Certified in Battleground States
With voting underway in the presidential election, voters should be prepared to hear about election certification: the post-election formality that marks the end of the vote-counting process. In the weeks after Election Day, local election officials begin a series of checks, known as the canvass, to make sure all votes are counted, resolve any discrepancies in the vote totals, and ensure the results are accurate.
What Does Popular Sovereignty Really Mean?
This year, more than 50 citizen initiatives will appear on the ballot in states across the country. As we hurtle toward Election Day, State Court Report has two new essays unpacking recent state supreme court cases that consider the relationship between direct democracy and the power of state legislatures.
Status of Partisan Gerrymandering Litigation in State Courts
The Utah Supreme Court today declined to reach partisan gerrymandering claims brought by Utah voters challenging a congressional map that split Salt Lake City across all four of the state’s congressional districts.
Commentary: Supreme Court should not be its own referee — Stephen Spaulding
After ProPublica’s reporting, Thomas will amend some disclosure forms to account for a previously undisclosed real estate deal with Crow in 2014 as part of the megadonor’s plans to build a museum to honor Thomas. This is not the first time that Thomas has had to take steps to comply with his transparency obligations after third-party revelations.
Stephen Spaulding | The Supreme Court should not be its own referee
Our nation’s highest court – the Supreme Court – should live by the highest ethical standards. Right now, no transparent code of conduct governs its nine members like there is for all other federal judges – one that requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” It is long past time for that to change.
ColumnL Should the Supreme Court justices have a code of ethics?
Our nation’s highest court — the Supreme Court — should live by the highest ethical standards. Right now, no transparent code of conduct governs its nine members like there is for all other federal judges — one that requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” It is long past time for that to change.
Our Highest Court Needs the Highest Ethical Standards: Three Proposals to Raise the Bar
Our highest court should meet the highest ethical standards. Both the public and litigants need to be able to assess any potential conflicts for themselves. Disclosure is needed to help strengthen trust in an open, honest, and accountable government.
Opinion: The Supreme Coiurt should not be its own referee
Our nation's highest court - the Supreme Court - should live by the highest ethical standards. Right now, no transparent code of conduct governs its nine members like there is for all other federal judges - one that requires judges to "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."
POINT: Should the Supreme Court justices have a code of ethics?
Our nation’s highest court — the Supreme Court — should live by the highest ethical standards. Right now, no transparent code of conduct governs its nine members like there is for all other federal judges — one that requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” It is long past time for that to change.
POINT: Should the Supreme Court justices have a code of ethics?
Country United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth...
Lisa Gilbert
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The Freedom to Vote or the Freedom to Filibuster
This week, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his GOP colleagues blocked the Senate from debating and passing the Freedom to Vote Act—transformative legislation to expand voting rights, ban gerrymandering, curb election sabotage, and break the grip of big, secret money in politics. Senate Republicans used a loophole in the Senate’s rules—the filibuster—to block even holding a debate on the bill.
HR.1 Is Very Much Alive — SMERCONISH
Americans showed up in record numbers to vote last year amid a deadly pandemic. Many voted by mail for the first time; others cast ballots early at in-person locations. It was the highest voter turnout in a century as voters chose new leadership. And the backlash to that unprecedented participation was swift.
Dysfunctional FEC can’t decide if payment to Stormy Daniels broke campaign finance laws
By Ann Ravel and Stephen Spaulding Thursday, June 3, 2021 | 2 a.m. Our country’s campaign finance referee, the Federal Election Commission, has an exceptionally important mission. It’s supposed to protect the fairness and integrity of our elections. But it needs repair. Among the key indicators: Dark money is still on the rise, rules to ensure transparency have stalled for a decade, and major campaign finance violations are routinely swept under the rug. Congress must act.
Op-Ed: Did Stormy Daniels' $130,000 break campaign finance laws? The FEC is too dysfunctional to decide
Stormy Daniels in 2018. The Federal Election Commission punted on allegations that Donald Trump was behind payments to Daniels that broke campaign laws. (Associated Press) Our country’s campaign finance referee, the Federal Election Commission, has an exceptionally important mission. It’s supposed to protect the fairness and integrity of our elections. But it needs repair.
OPINION: Two smart ways to deter foreign money and dirt-digging from our elections
Donald Trump Jr. should have reported a Russian request for a campaign meeting to authorities, according to the writers. Legislation would make it a legal requirement. Spaulding is a public policy attorney at Common Cause. Gilbert is executive vice president and Holman is a lobbyist at Public Citizen. Both groups advocate for a broad array of democracy reforms.
The parts of H.R. 1 you haven't heard about
© Greg Nash The parts of H.R. 1 you haven't heard about This week the House of Representatives is poised to vote on H.R. 1, the "For the People Act." The bill's marquee provisions to protect the freedom to vote, end gerrymandering, and reduce the undue influence of money in the political process have received well-deserved attention. It is a transformative bill.
Access to Democracy Must Be a Priority For All – InsideSources
In America, voters — not politicians — decide elections. And they did so in record numbers this year. The projected results for many races including the White House are in, and Americans are celebrating their democracy. The final tally will come when all votes are counted, canvassed, and certified over the next few weeks. Counting every vote is what makes us a democracy. Amid a deadly pandemic, millions of voters overcame obstacles to make it harder to vote — especially Black and brown voters.
Federalist Society big donors land very special place at Justice Thomas' table
Earlier this week, I wrote about the judicial ethics problems plaguing The Federalist Society’s annual black-tie dinner, which took place Thursday night. It had all of the trappings of a classic Washington fundraiser — big-name corporate sponsors underwriting the costs for more than 1,300 guests, and tickets at $200 a pop. The headliners were Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes.
The Lessons & Legacy of a Watergate Baby
Bob Edgar on the front lines of a protest in 2012 I originally wrote this two years ago in April 2016— before the parallels between the Trump Administration & the Nixon Administration would come into full view.
H.R. 1: Forging a Path for Pro-Democracy Reform | Take Care
H.R. 1: Forging a Path for Pro-Democracy Reform Take Care is pleased to present a series of posts offering thoughts on how Congress might address key issues in ethics and anti-corruption reform. By Stephen Spaulding | Common Cause Riding a wave of outrage at a corrupt president who abused his power and thought he was above the law, Americans elected a huge class of novice politicians to Congress. Their charge: clean up Washington. It was 1974.
Financing India's Elections
As India gears up for next year’s general election, there is genuine uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the country’s gargantuan polls. Yet there is widespread consensus on one thing: the 2019 election will be one of the world’s most expensive on record. A new book, Costs of Democracy: Political Finance in India, provides one of the first in-depth investigations of money in Indian politics.
How the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Michael Cohen money triangle could violate campaign finance law
Americans have a right to know who is spending money to influence our elections — whether it’s the hundreds of millions of dollars from unknown sources that has flooded into federal elections since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision or the $130,000 in hush money paid to a porn star days before the 2016 presidential election.
Letter: Restrictions on abortion save lives
It’s a scientific fact that once conception has occurred, a unique human being with unique human DNA exists. It just needs to grow and develop to pass through the stages that we have all passed through: to blastocyst, to embryo, to fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, teen, etc. All are names for different phases of human life. I’m wondering why viability is any criteria for whether one human being has the right to end the life of another?
OPINION: Follow the money in Stormy Daniels scandal
Americans have a right to follow the money when it comes to campaign spending. Including if $130,000 in hush money is anonymously funneled to a person who may have damaging information about a major party’s presidential nominee less than a month before the election. This is at the heart of the complaints that Common Cause filed last week with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
The Stormy Daniels hush money scandal is a big deal. We're treating it that way.
Did Trump's campaign break the law by trying to buy a porn star's silence about an affair? Don't let this fiasco fade. Follow the money. Americans have a right to follow the money when it comes to campaign spending. Including whether $130,000 in hush money is anonymously funneled to a person who might have damaging information about a major party’s presidential nominee less than a month before the election.
The GOP Tax Bill Would Let Charities Get Into Partisan Politics
In the dead of night over the weekend – 1:36 a.m. on Saturday, to be exact – the United States Senate passed its version of "tax reform," teeing up a conference with the House of Representatives to iron out differences between each chamber's bill. The bills are not an overhaul of our byzantine tax code but a giveaway to the 1 percent. They are littered with special interest giveaways that have been pushed by big donors.
Federal Election Commission must not shy away from Russia probe
Two summers ago, U.S. Sen.
McCutcheon v FEC: Undermining representative democracy
Shaun McCutcheon, the lead plaintiff, is challenging the $123,200 limit on contributions a single donor may make to federal candidates and political party committees during any two-year election cycle. The cap is more than double a family of four’s median income, but apparently it’s not enough for some wealthy donors. If McCutcheon prevails, he and similarly wealthy donors soon will be able to write campaign checks of up to $3.6 million a pop.
America’s “Menendez” problem: How big money poisons politics - and how it can be fixed
Call it senatorial serendipity. Senator Robert Menendez’s indictment yesterday, including allegations of official favors for political contributions, came down one day before the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. That case blew the lids off of overall “aggregate” contribution limits. While Sen.
Abolishing the filibuster, one year later
It's freezing in Washington this week, but it's not the nuclear winter some Republican senators predicted one year ago today. Last Nov. 21, a majority of senators — old bulls like Iowa's Tom Harkin (D), new voices like Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts and independents like Angus King of Maine — voted to set a new precedent: No longer could 41-out-of-100 senators wield veto power over every presidential nomination.
The Senate’s détente: Treating the symptoms, not the disease
The symptoms included an unprecedented backlog of presidential nominees, sandbagged for months – sometimes years — by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell R-Ky.). The disease is a filibuster rule that gives 41 out of 100 senators unchecked veto power over the entire legislative process, including the approval of nominees, often without so much as one word spoken on the Senate floor.
Nothing special about the filibuster
Nothing special about the filibuster The 'tyrrany of the minority' is no better than the 'tyrrany of the majority,' the author says. Though the long-term outcome of last month’s Senate debate over the filibuster rule is uncertain, it’s already clear that gridlock won’t be disappearing anytime soon. The cause is a filibuster rule that gives 41 of 100 senators veto power over the entire legislative process.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Stephen
Contact Stephen, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack