NBA Coach Doc Rivers interviews Amber McReynolds, founding CEO for the National Vote at Home Institute, to discuss National Voter Education Week.
Video: NBA Coach Doc Rivers interviews Amber McReynolds
Doc Rivers and Amber McReynolds
For a long time, scholars, commentators, and officials have debated the efficacy of shame as a form of punishment. Opinion has been divided over the efficacy and appropriateness of using it as a response to a criminal conviction.
But nowhere did anyone ever suggest that shaming someone would be an acceptable reason to prosecute them. Until now.
On May 14, Ed Martin, the newly appointed director of the Justice Department’s so-called “Weaponization Working Group” and the department’s pardon attorney, said he plans to use his position to “expose and discredit” people on President Trump’s enemies list, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them.
Former Federal Prosecutor Barbara McQuade gets it right when she says, “Ed Martin may have finally found his calling: He will lead a made-up sounding organization to investigate imagined abuses of power.”
In a society governed by the rule of law, prosecutors leave people alone unless and until they have reason to believe they have violated the law. However, in Martin’s view, for the people on whom President Trump wants to seek revenge, guilt comes before the crime.
Referring to the president’s enemies, Martin said his guiding philosophy will be: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A culture that respects shame? Seems an odd way to characterize what the president and his administration are trying to foster.
Shame, as Philip Rotner writes in The Bulwark, “is generally understood to be a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety.” Shamelessness, on the other hand, means that a person is “‘insensible to disgrace’. Not necessarily unaware, but ‘insensible.’”
“That’s Trump,” Rotner argues, “Trump’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t know right from wrong. It’s that he doesn’t care.” He says that Trump “is expanding and revising our understanding” of the meaning of shamelessness.
And as Rotner puts it, “The crown jewel of Trump’s shamelessness has to be his attacks on the Biden family. Trump has been pushing phony corruption allegations against the Bidens that were manufactured out of nothing by Steve Bannon’s gang of conspiracy-mongering trolls.”
Enter Martin.
He is one instrument to call out the president’s “adversaries for his own vices….”
Not surprisingly, Martin was very clear about the people he intends to investigate, people he called “really bad actors that did really bad things to the American people.” As the Daily Beast reports, Martin will have a big target list if he wants to go after those who Trump already has called out, including “Bruce Springsteen and Kamala Harris to pollsters who show his approval rating is sinking, as well as prosecutors who have worked on cases against him, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and former Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
But Martin’s real target is, of course, former President Biden. No surprise there.
Talking about his job as pardon attorney, Martin stated: “[My] job as pardon attorney will be to make clear how the pardon process works, and I think no one with the standard of reasonableness thinks what Joe Biden did at the end of his term was really reasonable….I think the Biden pardons need some scrutiny.”
More generally, Martin explained, “I'm now looking closely, you know, at the Biden administration… they targeted individuals to make sure they could put them in jail to build a case.”
How ironic?
Martin is denouncing something the Biden administration allegedly did while doing that very thing himself. As The New York Times puts it, he is intent on “weaponizing an institution he has been hired to de-weaponize.”
Shameless.
But undisturbed, Martin claims, “That’s the way things work, and so that’s how I believe the job operates.”
No, that’s not how the job operates.
Martin’s planned use of his power to shame the innocent would violate several tenets of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) “Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function.” For example, the ABA says that “the primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law…The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty…and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons…”
It also insists that “a prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion.”
Moreover, NBC reports that Martin’s plan to “‘name’ and ‘shame’ individuals…would amount to a major departure from longstanding Justice Department protocols.” Those protocols “state that officials generally shouldn't confirm the existence of or otherwise comment on ongoing investigations”.
But no mind. As Martin explained, “When I was asked to switch over here, I was told, you know, this job, you need to be out more and talk about what’s going on. So I think we’ll be a little bit more outward facing in terms of talking about what’s happening,” though he didn’t say who gave him that instruction.
He clothed his promised shaming campaign as a public service. "I will say,” Martin claimed, “that the prosecutor’s role, and at this moment in our history, is to make clear what the truth is and to get that out.”
He added derisively, “It can’t be that the system is stifling the truth from coming out because of some procedure."
In that one remark, we can see Martin’s contempt for the rule of law, which insists that the powerful have to follow procedures, even when it is inconvenient to do so. He seems determined to use his position to conduct trials by media, where balanced consideration of the facts gives way to outrageous allegations, repeated over and over again.
Shaming is a form of punishment. It may or may not be wise to use it after conviction.
But it is never legitimate for the government to use it before anyone has been convicted of anything.
More than eighty years ago, Robert Jackson, then-Attorney General of the United States, said that “the prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations.”
Martin is apparently “that kind of person.” And he has found his niche in Trump’s Justice Department.
Jackson, as if foreseeing the world we now find ourselves in, warned about prosecutors who “pick people that [they think they] should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
“In such a case,” Jackson said, “it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass… that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.”
Americans need to heed Jackson’s wisdom and urge Congress to do what it can to prevent the Justice Department, or any part of it, from becoming a vehicle for the deployment of shame. And courts, when the occasion arises, should carefully scrutinize Martin’s weaponization group to make sure he is not allowed to act on his plan.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th President of the United States.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
President Donald Trump falsely claimed his January 6, 2021 speech preceding the Capitol Building riot “had more people” in attendance than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
What the bill does
In January, Trump's second inauguration coincidentally fell on MLK Day.
In response, the Proper Celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Inauguration Day Act would delay MLK Day by one day, to the third Tuesday in January, in years where it conflicts with a presidential inauguration.
The bill was introduced jointly by one Republican and one Democrat: Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI7) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY5).
Why would MLK Day be moved, rather than the inauguration? The inauguration’s date is set by the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, while MLK Day is set by a 1983 federal law. So while it would take another constitutional amendment to move the inauguration, requiring higher numerical thresholds for ratification, it would only take a “regular” bill to change MLK Day.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Context
Martin Luther King Jr. Day is a federal holiday honoring the assassinated civil rights leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Time Magazine 1963 Person of the Year.
Inaugurations are always held on January 20. MLK Day is always commemorated on the third Monday in January, which occasionally happens to fall on January 20. (Even though Dr. King’s actual birthday was January 15.)
Ever since MLK Day was first celebrated as a federal holiday in 1986, it’s coincided with an inauguration only twice: 1997 for Bill Clinton’s second inaugural, plus 2025 for Trump’s.
The next such occurrence won’t happen again until 2053, seven presidential elections from now. For comparison, Vice President J.D. Vance was elected last November at age 40. If the vice president (or even the president) who’s inaugurated in 2053 is the same age, they’d only be 12 now.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that both major observances should receive their respective full credit and attention, rather than cannibalizing each other.
“[MLK] Day and Inauguration Day both have profound significance in the U.S., and neither should ever overshadow the other,” Rep. Barrett said in a press release. “Our bipartisan bill makes a simple but important change to ensure the peaceful transfer of power and Dr. King’s enduring legacy both receive the full recognition they deserve. [We should] preserve these momentous occasions that undoubtedly deserve their own days of celebration as a nation.”
Nothing in that press release, from either the Republican or Democratic cosponsor, explicitly mentions Trump.
What opponents say
One surprising opponent: MLK’s daughter Bernice King. She opposes Trump, yet still found a silver lining in his inauguration’s timing.
“A Trump win could potentially set in motion a perilous and oppressive presidential administration, that would undermine and deny the hard-fought battle for civil and human rights for which my parents and so many others sacrificed,” she said in an interview with The Independent.
Yet, “I’m glad that if it was going to happen, it happened on the King holiday, because Dr. King is still speaking to us.” Simultaneously honoring her father’s ideals demonstrates how “we have to commit ourselves to continuing the mission of protecting freedom, justice, and democracy in the spirit of my father.”
Odds of passage
Besides the two aforementioned bipartisan cosponsors, the bill has not attracted a single other cosponsor since its mid-March introduction.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The Fulcrum recently covered the Honor Inauguration Day Act, another bill inspired by Trump’s 2025 inauguration. The American flag almost flew at half-staff at the Capitol Building during the ceremony, due to the government’s official 30-day mourning period for former President Jimmy Carter’s death. The bill would require the Stars and Stripes to fly at full height on inauguration days.
The difference is, while the MLK Day bill has bipartisan cosponsorship, that bill is entirely Republican.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. From Rob Ritchie, with Eveline Dowling’s help, we explore five ways democracy is evolving—locally, nationally, and globally. Today's stories include:
🌟 Future of RCV is Bright - Energy & trends favor voter choice
🧒 Engaging Young People - State capital visits, mock elections, student school board members, and more
💡 Better Ways for Parties and Legislators to Pick Leaders - Combining the old and the new
⚡The Case for Faster Runoff Elections - Balancing voter access and voter energy
🕓 This Week’s Timely Links - Free press, judicial elections, social media, weak plurality winners, new RCV support
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Dubbed “Mr. Ranked Choice Voting” by Andrew Yang in his podcast with me in 2022, I’ve gotten a lot of questions about the future of the movement for ranked choice voting (RCV). Last year, RCV on its own lost on the ballot in Oregon. RCV’s pairing with all-candidate primaries was upheld in Alaska, but that reform package lost in Nevada (by 6%), Colorado (by 7%), and Idaho (by a landslide). Following the 2022 lead of Florida governor Ron DeSantis, 16 Republican-run states have performatively “banned” RCV - and while no such “ban” stopped a current use of RCV, it signaled partisan opposition after years of RCV earning support across the partisan spectrum..
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I’m as disappointed with these setbacks as any backer of RCV, but my optimism for America’s eventual shift to RCV - and more broadly, to redefining voting as ranking – is as high as ever. Eveline, Cynthia Richie Terrell, and I are working on a book to be published next year where we’ll lay out the case for that change, and I wanted to share a few toplines about where we are:
To be clear, I’m not calling the shots for future RCV advocacy, but am an advisor to groups like FairVote that do. I’m impressed with the RCV movement’s leadership and confident that we’ll have much good news to share on RCV for years to come.
[Rob Richie hiking in Oregon in 2023.]
As we experience declines in democratic institutions across the world (with average declines in democracy ratings every year of this century, according to Freedom House), it becomes all the more imperative to invest in our young people as they go through our K-12 education system and enter their adult role as governing citizens. Some nations, like Sweden, take this exceptionally seriously, offering year-long civic education classes in the spirit of “driver’s ed.” These classes include trips for every student to the national capital to participate in a mock parliament and see the actual parliament in action; American civic education lags.
There are some great groups working to address what can be done. Founded by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, ICivics has an ambitious vision. Citizen University brings together a range of key civic players. For examples of ideas that earned my support over the years, here are four from FairVote’s blog and old policy guide:
[Stanford has used RCV since 2001 to elect Associated Students of Stanford University executive officers and class presidents. Source: The Stanford Report]
Last week, Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly tragically died of cancer. A special election will be held to fill his House seat later this year, while Politico reports that on June 24th, the Democratic caucus in the House will hold a vote to fill the ranking Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that, “is shaping up to be a competitive four-way race that could test Democrats’ adherence to their seniority system for committee leadership and appetite to elevate younger members. Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Robert Garcia of California are all expected to run for the position.”
In 2022, House Democrats nearly enacted a rule change to hold such caucus elections with ranked choice voting. Recommended by Robert’s Rules of Order as an alternative to a series of single-choice elections until a candidate secures a majority of the vote, RCV is widely used by private organizations and parties. It encourages voters to consider all their options in ways that align with a desire for more collaborative, consensus-driven leadership. Already, a number of Democratic state parties have turned to RCV for internal elections, including party chair elections in Wisconsin and Iowa.
RCV works well in such settings, but it may not come with as much deliberation and negotiation as with multiple rounds of voting. When voters gather in person for a significant internal election, such as selecting a national party chair, a presidential nominee at a convention, or the Speaker of the House, I recommend striking a balance between straightforward RCV and multiple rounds of voting. An example would involve starting with two or three single-choice voting rounds, which would allow voters to see where the candidates stand, engage in discussion and negotiation between rounds, and then “call the question” with a binding RCV election. That approach would allow time to identify compromise choices where needed, but it would still benefit from how RCV encourages both voters and candidates to engage beyond their first-choice support.
Calling the question can also be very important. In 1924, national Democrats held 103 rounds of voting to pick a presidential nominee, adding days to their convention. In 2023, Congress was put on hold for four days while Republicans sought to elect a Speaker of the House over 15 rounds of voting. Combining a few rounds of voting with a decisive vote utilizing RCV would limit delays and diminish the influence of those primarily aiming to obstruct outcomes rather than contribute to them.
[The late ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Gerry Connolly. Source: ABC News]
Guest-blogging for Rick Hasen’s ever-valuable election law blog, Loyola law professor Justin Levitt lifted up news coverage from the Massachusetts city of New Bedford on the challenges of holding a winnowing primary and general election four weeks apart, terming that turnaround time a “horrible idea.” With full respect for Justin and great empathy for the pressures on election officials, I want to push back against the idea that longer gaps between runoff rounds are better for democracy.
The reality is that longer gaps between rounds are worse for voter turnout. University of Georgia professor Charles Bullock has a new manuscript on runoff elections that builds on his impressive academic work on this issue. It can’t reach the public too soon, as how we conduct runoff elections is an important question – not only in the nine states using runoff elections in their primary and/or general elections, but also in many major cities and in states that may vote on variations of California’s Top Two primary model and Louisiana’s all-candidate election model. A teaser from Bullock’s forthcoming book reveals that among the runoffs he studied, voter turnout declined by 12% on average in the 1,234 runoffs where the runoff period was less than four weeks. For the 879 runoffs where the runoff period was exactly four weeks, the average decline was over 26%. For the 590 runoffs where the runoff period was more than four weeks, the average turnout decline was nearly 40%.
FairVote has identified similar patterns in its important report on all 294 congressional primary runoffs held between 1994 and 2024. It found turnout decreased from the primary to the runoff in 97% of contests by a median of 41%. In 2024, the pattern was even more stark, with turnout declines in all 16 runoffs, with a median decline of 63% and with fully 81% of winners receiving fewer votes in the runoff than in the first round.
FairVote also affirms the influence of runoff time, with author Rachel Hutchinson writing: “Since 1994, runoffs held within 30 days of the initial primary had a median turnout decline of 33%, while those with a gap greater than 30 days had a median decline of 48%.” Notably, the 2024 runoff with the smallest decline (still high at 32%) was in South Carolina, where the runoff period is just two weeks, based in part on having its overseas voters cast instant runoff ballots. This turnout difference based on time intuitively makes sense. A faster runoff makes the two rounds of voting feel more like a single contest. Imagine if the gap between National Football League games were six weeks rather than one, or the impact on ratings if a TV show’s final annual episode premiered two months after its previous episode.
As we examine election reforms, I’m an obvious fan of ranked choice voting, or “instant runoffs." However, for states and cities that have two rounds of voting, discovering ways to merge them into a single, engaging election session is highly appealing. Notably, it’s quite common overseas, such as the two-week runoff for France’s presidential elections (where in 2022, the turnout was 73.7% in the first round and 72% in the runoff) and the two weeks needed for Romania’s recent presidential runoff, where turnout surged from 53.2% to 64.7%. Exploring how to keep the runoff period under a month is worth the effort.
[Source: FairVote, 2024]
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
The Trump administration has paused new student visa interviews as part of an effort to expand social media screening for applicants. The State Department has instructed U.S. embassies and consulates to stop scheduling new student and exchange visitor visa appointments until further guidance is issued. However, previously scheduled interviews will still proceed.
Additionally the Trump Administration has temporarily halted new student and exchange visitor visa interviews at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide while it expands social media screening for applicants. The pause applies to F, M, and J visa categories, but already scheduled interviews will proceed as planned
This move is part of a broader effort to increase vetting of international students, with concerns about national security and antisemitism cited as reasons for the expanded screening. Some universities, including Harvard, have already faced restrictions on enrolling international students. Critics argue that this policy could disrupt higher education and deter students from choosing the U.S. as a study destination
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The directive was widely circulated to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The State Department said it would issue further guidance to consulates and embassies in the coming days. “Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor visa appointment capacity," the cable said.
The memo also warned of “potentially significant implications for consular section operations, processes, and resource allocations” in a clear indication of the delay likely for student visa applications.
“Consular sections will need to take into consideration the workload and resource requirements of each case prior to scheduling them going forward,” the cable said, adding the priority should be on “services for U.S. citizens, immigrant visas, and fraud prevention.”
The State Department has not specified an end date for the pause, stating that further guidance will be issued in the coming days. The expanded vetting process aims to scrutinize applicants' social media activity, particularly posts perceived as hostile to U.S. interests.
On May 28, the Trump administration announced that it would aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, particularly those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the State Department will work with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce these revocations and revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of future applications from China and Hong Kong.
China has strongly opposed these measures, calling them harmful to students' legitimate rights and interests. The decision could have a significant impact on U.S. universities, which rely on international students for revenue and research contributions.
As of the 2023-2024 academic year, there were approximately 277,398 Chinese students enrolled in U.S. universities, making China the second-largest source of international students in the country. India recently overtook China as the top sender, with over 331,602 students.
Despite a slight decline in numbers, Chinese students continue to make up a significant portion of the international student population, particularly in fields such as engineering, business, and computer science. Their presence contributes to both academic research and university funding.
As of the 2023/2024 academic year, the U.S. hosted over 1.1 million international students, marking a 7% increase from the previous year. These students make significant contributions to the economy and academic diversity.
Some universities have a high percentage of international students, which means they may be heavily affected by visa restrictions. The top institutions with the highest proportion of international students:
1. Illinois Institute of Technology – 51% of students are international.
2. Carnegie Mellon University – 44% international students.
3. Stevens Institute of Technology – 42% international students.
4. Northeastern University – 40% international students.
5. Columbia University – 40% international students.
6. New York University (NYU) – 37% international students.
Additionally, universities like Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California system have reported visa cancellations affecting their international students. Harvard alone has 27% international students, making it one of the most impacted institutions.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.