Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New poll reminds us that the rule of law is on the ballot

Flags of the United States hanging in front of the facade of a building
Colors Hunter - Chasseur de Couleurs/Getty Images

Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, is of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

On Sept. 17, the highly regarded World Justice Project released a detailed report reflecting some major good news amidst a continuing modest slide in Americans’ trust in our institutions. Encouragingly, WJP’s survey of voters shows that more than 90 percent of Americans in both parties — an unheard-of polling number — believe that preserving the rule of law is important or essential.

That vital fact tells us that, contrary to skeptics’ views, the concept of the rule of law is not too abstract to influence American voters in the upcoming election. People care very much about it, and the evidence of declining trust in our basic institutions suggests that the rule of law can play a potent role in the election.


The one political party committed to the rule of law can profitably focus on the rule of law crisis — along with kitchen table issues — as the presidential campaign enters peak season.

WJP produces the biennial Rule of Law Index, ranking countries on their citizens' perceptions of compliance with principles essential to democratic government and individual freedom. Last year’s index ranked the United States 26th out of 142 countries in a world described as being in a “rule of law recession.” Since then, Americans do not think things have gotten better, and they are concerned.

This sharp awareness of how short we are falling shows up throughout the report. Accountability is the backbone of the rule of law, and the WJP/YouGov polling results show a plummet in the last decade from 60 percent to 35 percent in the proportion of people who agree that high-ranking officials are likely to face consequences for breaking the law. Similarly, people’s confidence in Congress and the courts to act as a check on excessive executive power dropped markedly during the period from 2016 to 2024, though both still are in the 60 percent range.

Questions directed more generally to the independence and fairness of the justice system brought answers reflecting some decline in trust over the last few years. Two thirds (down from 80 percent in 2013) still believe that the courts guarantee everyone a fair trial, while broader questions about the independence and lack of bias of judges yield positive answers from a bit less than half of those questioned. Trust in other institutions, including the media, prosecutors, national and local government officials, and the police, has also eroded modestly during this period, and, except for the media (now 38 percent) generally hover close to or just above the 50 percent level.

Notably, in the face of these results, the report also records a significant rise in Americans’ perception of citizen power to step up and check otherwise unchecked executive action. Forty-nine percent of respondents — up from 30 percent in 2021 — report some confidence that individual Americans themselves can play a key role helping to stop abuses of executive power.

This is a tribute to individual citizens who have become active and organized, including countless people who are discussing these issues with friends and neighbors, and a great many who have spoken out publicly. They include a growing number of prominent Republicans like former Vice President Dick Cheney who have made the rule of law the primary issue for them in determining who they will vote for in the upcoming presidential election.

In recent years, numerous groups supported by a broad base of Americans — like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Protect Democracy, States United Democracy Project, the Society for the Rule of Law and Lawyers Defending American Democracy have been fighting to preserve American constitutionalism as it has come under relentless attack. You can safely bet that the 90 percent or more of Americans who accord great value to the rule of law, and the 20 percent rise in citizens’ awareness of our own power, is attributable to individuals’ and groups raising the alarm about what so many took for granted before the current crisis in democracy.

Ultimately the rule of law protects the rights and freedoms of all Americans, including their rights of self-government, and the principle that no one is above or below the law. Power in this country has always derived from the people, and a people organized to protect ourselves is the ultimate guardrail of our freedom. The WJP report brings the welcome news that nearly all Americans care deeply about the principles the country is based on and they want to see our system of democracy and individual rights preserved.

The nation is now embroiled in a national election where the stakes are nothing less than our most fundamental constitutional principles and norms, and the individual rights they preserve. Given that the WJP survey of voters shows that more than 90 percent of Americans in both parties believe that preserving the rule of law is important or essential, it is surprising that only one set of candidates has fully embraced the rule of law as the determination of the election results. Our citizens deserve this being front and center in the campaigns of all candidates for office whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents.

It is up to us, as Benjamin Franklin famously said in 1787, to keep the Republic the founders gave us.


Read More

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less