open.spotify.com
How the Justice Department Came to Threaten Elections (with Eileen O'Connor and Chris Berger)
Listen to this episode from The Briefing with Michael Waldman on Spotify. Recently, we’ve seen an escalation in efforts to meddle with elections, from the dangerous SAVE Act, which is gaining momentum in Congress, to President Trump himself calling for “nationalizing” the counting of ballots. Less known is how the administration is leveraging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to subvert the vote. Over the last several months, the DOJ has been demanding access to voter rolls and suing states that don’t comply — a move that is not only unlawful but raises numerous alarms. In this episode, former DOJ officials and Brennan Center experts break down what’s happening inside the department, why it matters for the future of free and fair elections, and what can be done to stop the administration from undermining the rule of law.Recorded on February 10, 2026.Speakers:Eileen O’Connor, Senior Counsel and Manager, Democracy Program, Brennan Center Chris Berger, Patricia Bauman Senior Fellow, Brennan CenterHost: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterKeep up with the Brennan Center’s work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.
![Second, a full-blown two-party system has emerged in the
States where §2 suits are most common. Gingles arose in
the context of a one-party system in which black and white
voters had starkly different voting patterns despite their af-
filiation within the same party. 478 U. S., at 59. In the
area involved in Gingles, an overwhelming majority of
white voters did not vote for any black candidate in the
Democratic party primary elections, which for all practical
purposes selected the candidates who would ultimately ob-
tain office. Ibid. And in general elections, white voters in
heavily Democratic areas often ranked black candidates
last among Democrats. Ibid. Such intra-party disparities
showed that black voters had less opportunity to elect their
preferred candidate because of their race, not because of
their partisan affiliation.
When the vast majority of voters, regardless of race, fa-
vors the same political party, a map that is disadvanta-
geous for members of one racial group cannot be explained
on the ground that it was drawn to favor a particular polit-
ical party. But in a State where both parties have substan-
tial support and where race is often correlated with party
preference, a litigant can easily exploit §2 for partisan pur-
poses by “repackag[ing] a partisan-gerrymandering claim
as a racial-gerrymandering claim.” Alexander, 602 U. S., at
21.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f7nmfnzyumexdbejb6x4aqky/bafkreib3uhozh7iafrswjczgtnmcf7xrj22khvwfqhzssevikpcidzsv64)
