Issues

Reject the Radical, Risky National Popular Vote Compact

A campaign that started in California in 2006 has reached Richmond, and it's gunning for the Electoral College. Bills passed by Virginia's House and Senate would add the Commonwealth to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a scheme that would force Virginia to ignore its own voters and hand its presidential electors to whoever wins a nationwide popularity contest. There's no official national vote total, it likely violates the Constitution's Compact Clause, and every single state that's signed on is blue. Here's why Gov. Spanberger should reject it.

By |2026-03-04T10:04:06-05:00March 3, 2026|ACRU Commentary, Elections, Electoral College|

Election Day Means Election Day

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case that could redefine what “Election Day” means nationwide. At stake is whether ballots must be received by Election Day or may arrive afterward — a decision with major implications for election law, voter confidence, and the uniformity of federal elections.

By |2026-03-02T14:49:28-05:00March 2, 2026|ACRU Commentary, ACRU Lori Roman, Elections|

ACRU Files Amicus Brief in Watson v. Republican National Committee

The American Constitutional Rights Union has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260), joining the Public Interest Legal Foundation in support of the Respondents. The case centers on a straightforward but consequential question: does federal law require that ballots be received by Election Day? The Mississippi Secretary of State argues states can extend ballot receipt deadlines beyond Election Day. The Respondents, and ACRU, say no.

By |2026-02-25T11:45:59-05:00February 24, 2026|ACRU Amicus Briefs, ACRU Litigation News, Elections, In the Courts|

The Second Amendment Doesn’t Have an Asterisk

FBI Director Kash Patel’s recent comments about firearms at protests sparked a needed reminder: the Bill of Rights isn’t a buffet. Carrying a firearm at a peaceful protest remains constitutionally protected, while criminal behavior, like interfering with law enforcement, brings its own legal consequences. The danger lies in blurring that line. When officials imply that lawful carry equals a threat, they unintentionally hand ammunition to those eager to chip away at constitutional rights.

Go to Top