Columns
U.S. bombing of Iran shows little evidence of endgame strategy
March 04 ,2026
Shortly after the opening salvo of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iranon Feb.
28, 2026 – with missiles targeting cities across the country, some of
which killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – President Donald
Trump declared the objective was to destroy Iran’s military capabilities
and give rise to a change in government.
:
Farah N. Jan
University of Pennsylvania
(THE CONVERSATION) — Shortly after the opening salvo of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iranon Feb. 28, 2026 – with missiles targeting cities across the country, some of which killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – President Donald Trump declared the objective was to destroy Iran’s military capabilities and give rise to a change in government.
Framing the operation as a war of liberation, Trump called on Iranians to “take over your government.”
In the first days alone, Israel dropped over 2,000 bombs on Iranian targets, equal to half the tonnage of the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict in June 2025. Heavy U.S. bombing, meanwhile, has targeted Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as well as ballistic missile and aerial defense sites.
The destruction is real. But, as an international relations scholar, I know that destruction is not the same as political success. And the historical record of U.S. bombing campaigns aimed at regime change shows that the gap between the two – the point at which Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya campaigns all stalled – is where wars go to die.
—————
Destruction is not strategy
Decades of scholarship dating back to World War I on using air power to force political change has established a consistent finding: Bombing can degrade military capacity and destroy infrastructure, but it does not produce governments more cooperative with the attacker.
Political outcomes require political processes – negotiation, institution-building, legitimate transitions of power.
Bombs cannot create any of these. Instead, what they reliably create is destruction, and destruction generates its own dynamics: rallying among the population, power vacuums, radicalization and cycles of retaliation.
The American record confirms this. In 2003, the George W. Bush administration launched “Shock and Awe” in Iraq with the explicit aim of regime change. The military objective was achieved in weeks. The political objective was never achieved at all.
The U.S. decision to disband the Iraqi army created a vacuum filled not by democratic reformers but by sectarian militias and eventually ISIS. The regime that eventually emerged was not friendly to American interests. It was deeply influenced by Iran.
In 2011, the Obama administration led a NATO air campaign in Libya that quickly expanded from civilian protection into regime change. Dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown and killed.
But there was no plan for political transition. Chaos and political instability have endured since. Asked what his “worst mistake” was as president, Barack Obama said, “Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” Libya remains a failed state today.
The intervention also sent a powerful signal to countries pursuing nuclear weapons: Gaddhafi had dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. Eight years later, NATO destroyed his regime.
Even Kosovo, often cited as the success story of coercive air power, undermines the case. Seventy-eight days of NATO bombing did not, by themselves, compel Slobodan Milosevic, president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to withdraw.
What changed was the credible threat of a ground invasion combined with Russia’s withdrawal of diplomatic support. The political outcome – contested statehood, ongoing ethnic tensions – is hardly the stable governance that air power advocates promise.
The pattern is consistent: The United States repeatedly confuses its unmatched capacity to destroy from the air with the ability to dictate political outcomes.
—————
Why this war?
The recent U.S. attacks on Iran raise a fundamental question: Why is the United States fighting this war at all?
The administration has declared regime change as its objective, justifying the campaign on the grounds of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities.
But that nuclear program was being actively negotiated in Geneva days before the strikes. And Iran’s foreign minister told NBC the two sides were close to a deal. Then the bombs fell.
Iran did not attack America. And it currently does not have the capability to threaten the American homeland. What Iran challenges is Israel’s regional military dominance, and I believe it is Israel’s objective of neutralizing a rival that is driving this operation.
Israel targeted 30 senior Iranian leaders in the opening strikes. Israeli officials described it as a preemptive attack to “remove threats to the State of Israel.” I see the strategic logic for these killings as Israel’s, and Americans are absorbing the costs.
U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have taken Iranian missile fire. American service members are in harm’s way – three have already been killed – not because Iran attacked them, but I believe because their president committed them to someone else’s war without a clear endgame.
Each coercive step in this conflict – from the 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal, to the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander, to the June 2025 strikes – was framed as restoring leverage.
Each produced the opposite, eliminating diplomatic off-ramps, accelerating the very threats it aimed to contain.
—————
The regime is not one man
Decapitation strikes assume that removing a leader removes the obstacle to political change. But Iran’s political system is institutional — the Guardian Council, the Assembly of Experts and the Revolutionary Guard have survived for four decades.
The system has succession mechanisms, but they were designed for orderly transitions, not for active bombardment. The group most likely to fill the vacuum is the Revolutionary Guard, whose institutional interest lies in escalation, not accommodation.
There is a deeper irony. The largest protests since 1979 swept Iran just weeks ago. A genuine domestic opposition was growing. The strikes have almost certainly destroyed that movement’s prospects.
Decades of research on rally-around-the-flag effects – the tendency of populations to unite behind their government when attacked by a foreign power – confirms that external attacks fuse regime and nation, even when citizens despise their leaders.
Iranians who were chanting “death to the dictator” are now watching foreign bombs fall on their cities during Ramadan, hearing reports of over 100 children killed in a strike on a girls school in Minab.
Trump’s call for Iranians to “seize control of your destiny” echoes a familiar pattern. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister in the name of freedom.
That produced the Shah, the Shah’s brutal reign led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the revolution produced the Islamic Republic now being bombed.
What comes next? And what guarantee is there that whatever emerges will be any friendlier to Israel or the United States?
What does success look like?
This is the question no one in Washington has answered. If the objective is regime change, who governs 92 million people after?
If the objective is stability, why are American bases across the Middle East absorbing missile fire?
There is no American theory of political endgame in Iran — only a theory of destruction. That theory has been tested in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – and Iran itself over the preceding eight months. It has failed every time, not because of poor execution, but because the premise is flawed.
Air power can raze a government’s infrastructure. It cannot build the political order that must replace it. Iran, with its sophisticated military, near-nuclear capability, proxy networks spanning the region and a regime now martyred by foreign attack, will likely not be the exception.
U.S. law prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and instead Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader while American warplanes filled the skies overhead. Washington has called the result freedom at hand, but it has not answered the only question that matters: What comes next?
Framing the operation as a war of liberation, Trump called on Iranians to “take over your government.”
In the first days alone, Israel dropped over 2,000 bombs on Iranian targets, equal to half the tonnage of the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict in June 2025. Heavy U.S. bombing, meanwhile, has targeted Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as well as ballistic missile and aerial defense sites.
The destruction is real. But, as an international relations scholar, I know that destruction is not the same as political success. And the historical record of U.S. bombing campaigns aimed at regime change shows that the gap between the two – the point at which Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya campaigns all stalled – is where wars go to die.
—————
Destruction is not strategy
Decades of scholarship dating back to World War I on using air power to force political change has established a consistent finding: Bombing can degrade military capacity and destroy infrastructure, but it does not produce governments more cooperative with the attacker.
Political outcomes require political processes – negotiation, institution-building, legitimate transitions of power.
Bombs cannot create any of these. Instead, what they reliably create is destruction, and destruction generates its own dynamics: rallying among the population, power vacuums, radicalization and cycles of retaliation.
The American record confirms this. In 2003, the George W. Bush administration launched “Shock and Awe” in Iraq with the explicit aim of regime change. The military objective was achieved in weeks. The political objective was never achieved at all.
The U.S. decision to disband the Iraqi army created a vacuum filled not by democratic reformers but by sectarian militias and eventually ISIS. The regime that eventually emerged was not friendly to American interests. It was deeply influenced by Iran.
In 2011, the Obama administration led a NATO air campaign in Libya that quickly expanded from civilian protection into regime change. Dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown and killed.
But there was no plan for political transition. Chaos and political instability have endured since. Asked what his “worst mistake” was as president, Barack Obama said, “Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” Libya remains a failed state today.
The intervention also sent a powerful signal to countries pursuing nuclear weapons: Gaddhafi had dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. Eight years later, NATO destroyed his regime.
Even Kosovo, often cited as the success story of coercive air power, undermines the case. Seventy-eight days of NATO bombing did not, by themselves, compel Slobodan Milosevic, president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to withdraw.
What changed was the credible threat of a ground invasion combined with Russia’s withdrawal of diplomatic support. The political outcome – contested statehood, ongoing ethnic tensions – is hardly the stable governance that air power advocates promise.
The pattern is consistent: The United States repeatedly confuses its unmatched capacity to destroy from the air with the ability to dictate political outcomes.
—————
Why this war?
The recent U.S. attacks on Iran raise a fundamental question: Why is the United States fighting this war at all?
The administration has declared regime change as its objective, justifying the campaign on the grounds of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities.
But that nuclear program was being actively negotiated in Geneva days before the strikes. And Iran’s foreign minister told NBC the two sides were close to a deal. Then the bombs fell.
Iran did not attack America. And it currently does not have the capability to threaten the American homeland. What Iran challenges is Israel’s regional military dominance, and I believe it is Israel’s objective of neutralizing a rival that is driving this operation.
Israel targeted 30 senior Iranian leaders in the opening strikes. Israeli officials described it as a preemptive attack to “remove threats to the State of Israel.” I see the strategic logic for these killings as Israel’s, and Americans are absorbing the costs.
U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have taken Iranian missile fire. American service members are in harm’s way – three have already been killed – not because Iran attacked them, but I believe because their president committed them to someone else’s war without a clear endgame.
Each coercive step in this conflict – from the 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal, to the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander, to the June 2025 strikes – was framed as restoring leverage.
Each produced the opposite, eliminating diplomatic off-ramps, accelerating the very threats it aimed to contain.
—————
The regime is not one man
Decapitation strikes assume that removing a leader removes the obstacle to political change. But Iran’s political system is institutional — the Guardian Council, the Assembly of Experts and the Revolutionary Guard have survived for four decades.
The system has succession mechanisms, but they were designed for orderly transitions, not for active bombardment. The group most likely to fill the vacuum is the Revolutionary Guard, whose institutional interest lies in escalation, not accommodation.
There is a deeper irony. The largest protests since 1979 swept Iran just weeks ago. A genuine domestic opposition was growing. The strikes have almost certainly destroyed that movement’s prospects.
Decades of research on rally-around-the-flag effects – the tendency of populations to unite behind their government when attacked by a foreign power – confirms that external attacks fuse regime and nation, even when citizens despise their leaders.
Iranians who were chanting “death to the dictator” are now watching foreign bombs fall on their cities during Ramadan, hearing reports of over 100 children killed in a strike on a girls school in Minab.
Trump’s call for Iranians to “seize control of your destiny” echoes a familiar pattern. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister in the name of freedom.
That produced the Shah, the Shah’s brutal reign led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the revolution produced the Islamic Republic now being bombed.
What comes next? And what guarantee is there that whatever emerges will be any friendlier to Israel or the United States?
What does success look like?
This is the question no one in Washington has answered. If the objective is regime change, who governs 92 million people after?
If the objective is stability, why are American bases across the Middle East absorbing missile fire?
There is no American theory of political endgame in Iran — only a theory of destruction. That theory has been tested in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – and Iran itself over the preceding eight months. It has failed every time, not because of poor execution, but because the premise is flawed.
Air power can raze a government’s infrastructure. It cannot build the political order that must replace it. Iran, with its sophisticated military, near-nuclear capability, proxy networks spanning the region and a regime now martyred by foreign attack, will likely not be the exception.
U.S. law prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and instead Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader while American warplanes filled the skies overhead. Washington has called the result freedom at hand, but it has not answered the only question that matters: What comes next?
Public defender shortage is leading to hundreds of criminal cases being dismissed
March 04 ,2026
The Oregon Supreme Court on Feb. 5, 2026, issued a ruling that will
have a wide impact. More than 1,400 criminal cases had to be dismissed,
the justices ruled, due to lack of adequate counsel available for
defendants.
:
By Georges Naufal and Emily Naiser
Texas A&M University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The Oregon Supreme Court on Feb. 5, 2026, issued a ruling that will have a wide impact. More than 1,400 criminal cases had to be dismissed, the justices ruled, due to lack of adequate counsel available for defendants.
Like other states, Oregon must provide defendants with legal representation if they cannot afford attorneys on their own. But Oregon has less than one-third of the attorneys it needs to provide adequate defense for indigents, or people who can’t afford counsel on their own.
Shortages of this scope are common around the country. Pennsylvania faces a similar shortage of about 30% of the public defenders it needs, with insufficient numbers of attorneys in nearly every county. New Mexico needs 67% more attorneys to provide effective counsel. Kansas needs 277 more public defenders, or roughly triple its current number.
As public policy researchers who study legal defense issues, we believe it’s clear that such shortages have repercussions throughout the criminal justice system.
Without enough lawyers providing indigent defense, defendants sit in jail longer, plead without guidance and risk wrongful convictions. Prosecutors face delays in clearing their cases. Court dockets slow, costs rise and public trust declines.
In other words, indigent defense shortages harm not only defendants but the justice system as a whole.
—————
Rights to an attorney
The Sixth Amendment guarantees individuals facing criminal charges the right to defense counsel, at government expense if required. This right was clarified by a landmark Supreme Court case in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright. The court ruled that states are required to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
About 80% to 90% of state defendants and more than 90% of federal defendants cannot afford a lawyer. The exact rate varies by state, year and type of charge, but it generally falls well above 50% of all criminal cases.
Fulfilling the promise made in Gideon often falls to public defenders and private lawyers appointed by courts. Sixty-three years after the decision, the pool of lawyers willing to fulfill this promise is rapidly shrinking, aging and is overburdened, with lawyers sometimes working without pay.
Texas reflects this national problem. There are too few lawyers handling too many cases, putting the whole criminal justice system at risk. In a research report for the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, our team at Texas A&M University found that the state lost 1,345 attorneys who had been handling indigent defense cases between 2014 and 2023, or about one-fourth of all such attorneys. That decline happened even as the total number of lawyers in Texas grew by more than 25,000.
The problem is worse in rural areas, where judges cannot find enough attorneys to appoint, slowing court operations. In Texas, 27% of attorneys in rural counties are already overburdened and exceeding recommended caseload guidelines.
“I understand the irony of a prosecutor advocating for money for a public defender office, but at the end of the day it would help the county carry out its constitutional obligation,” Val Verde County prosecutor David Martinez told the Texas Tribune. “It would save the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.”
—————
Fewer attorneys available
This problem is not new. A 2004 report from the American Bar Association outlined funding shortages that hampered hiring of defense counsel, leading to inexperienced and sometimes incompetent lawyers handling excessive caseloads.
But the problem has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic and its disruption of the labor market.
Our research shows that attorneys who take indigent defense cases often do so out of a strong sense of civic duty and commitment to public service. Attorneys are asked to do far more than just apply the law. They regularly help clients navigate housing, transportation, substance use and mental health needs. Without a strong sense of calling, many attorneys choose other areas of practice instead of public defense.
Some attorneys with a sense of motivation are still unable to join public service. Citing the cost of repaying law school loans, they enter private practice instead.
—————
No simple solutions
The shortage of attorneys willing to take indigent defense cases is a serious policy problem. Solving it requires expanding the pool of attorneys who are available to take these cases – both the attorneys who are practicing today and the attorneys who will enter the profession in the future.
Policymakers have mainly focused on expanding the pool of existing attorneys. The most common tools include increasing appointment fees, offering additional financial incentives and creating or expanding public defender offices.
These approaches can help in the short term, but their effects are limited. Raising fees rarely brings new attorneys into indigent defense; instead, it often lures attorneys from neighboring jurisdictions that already face shortages.
Raising fees for private lawyers also fails to address public defender offices, where attorneys are salaried and often paid less than prosecutors. Loan forgiveness programs can help recruitment and retention; research shows they matter for public service careers, but these programs are uneven across states and uncertain over time.
Financial incentives alone will not solve a workforce problem rooted in supply. A sustainable solution requires expanding the pool of prospective attorneys. We believe it would help for recruitment to begin much earlier, at the high school level, especially in rural areas, and continue through college and law school.
Current efforts tend to focus only on law students who are already committed to legal careers. Partnerships between counties, state agencies, bar associations, universities and community organizations could help build pipelines leading to public defense careers. They might offer, for example, internships and mentoring, or reduce barriers for students who want to serve their communities.
Expanding the pool of attorneys will require years of coordinated investment across states, counties, courts, law schools and the legal profession. Short-term incentives can prop up overburdened systems, but long-term recruitment will be needed to keep courts functioning and fully protect the constitutional right to counsel.
Texas A&M University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The Oregon Supreme Court on Feb. 5, 2026, issued a ruling that will have a wide impact. More than 1,400 criminal cases had to be dismissed, the justices ruled, due to lack of adequate counsel available for defendants.
Like other states, Oregon must provide defendants with legal representation if they cannot afford attorneys on their own. But Oregon has less than one-third of the attorneys it needs to provide adequate defense for indigents, or people who can’t afford counsel on their own.
Shortages of this scope are common around the country. Pennsylvania faces a similar shortage of about 30% of the public defenders it needs, with insufficient numbers of attorneys in nearly every county. New Mexico needs 67% more attorneys to provide effective counsel. Kansas needs 277 more public defenders, or roughly triple its current number.
As public policy researchers who study legal defense issues, we believe it’s clear that such shortages have repercussions throughout the criminal justice system.
Without enough lawyers providing indigent defense, defendants sit in jail longer, plead without guidance and risk wrongful convictions. Prosecutors face delays in clearing their cases. Court dockets slow, costs rise and public trust declines.
In other words, indigent defense shortages harm not only defendants but the justice system as a whole.
—————
Rights to an attorney
The Sixth Amendment guarantees individuals facing criminal charges the right to defense counsel, at government expense if required. This right was clarified by a landmark Supreme Court case in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright. The court ruled that states are required to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
About 80% to 90% of state defendants and more than 90% of federal defendants cannot afford a lawyer. The exact rate varies by state, year and type of charge, but it generally falls well above 50% of all criminal cases.
Fulfilling the promise made in Gideon often falls to public defenders and private lawyers appointed by courts. Sixty-three years after the decision, the pool of lawyers willing to fulfill this promise is rapidly shrinking, aging and is overburdened, with lawyers sometimes working without pay.
Texas reflects this national problem. There are too few lawyers handling too many cases, putting the whole criminal justice system at risk. In a research report for the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, our team at Texas A&M University found that the state lost 1,345 attorneys who had been handling indigent defense cases between 2014 and 2023, or about one-fourth of all such attorneys. That decline happened even as the total number of lawyers in Texas grew by more than 25,000.
The problem is worse in rural areas, where judges cannot find enough attorneys to appoint, slowing court operations. In Texas, 27% of attorneys in rural counties are already overburdened and exceeding recommended caseload guidelines.
“I understand the irony of a prosecutor advocating for money for a public defender office, but at the end of the day it would help the county carry out its constitutional obligation,” Val Verde County prosecutor David Martinez told the Texas Tribune. “It would save the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.”
—————
Fewer attorneys available
This problem is not new. A 2004 report from the American Bar Association outlined funding shortages that hampered hiring of defense counsel, leading to inexperienced and sometimes incompetent lawyers handling excessive caseloads.
But the problem has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic and its disruption of the labor market.
Our research shows that attorneys who take indigent defense cases often do so out of a strong sense of civic duty and commitment to public service. Attorneys are asked to do far more than just apply the law. They regularly help clients navigate housing, transportation, substance use and mental health needs. Without a strong sense of calling, many attorneys choose other areas of practice instead of public defense.
Some attorneys with a sense of motivation are still unable to join public service. Citing the cost of repaying law school loans, they enter private practice instead.
—————
No simple solutions
The shortage of attorneys willing to take indigent defense cases is a serious policy problem. Solving it requires expanding the pool of attorneys who are available to take these cases – both the attorneys who are practicing today and the attorneys who will enter the profession in the future.
Policymakers have mainly focused on expanding the pool of existing attorneys. The most common tools include increasing appointment fees, offering additional financial incentives and creating or expanding public defender offices.
These approaches can help in the short term, but their effects are limited. Raising fees rarely brings new attorneys into indigent defense; instead, it often lures attorneys from neighboring jurisdictions that already face shortages.
Raising fees for private lawyers also fails to address public defender offices, where attorneys are salaried and often paid less than prosecutors. Loan forgiveness programs can help recruitment and retention; research shows they matter for public service careers, but these programs are uneven across states and uncertain over time.
Financial incentives alone will not solve a workforce problem rooted in supply. A sustainable solution requires expanding the pool of prospective attorneys. We believe it would help for recruitment to begin much earlier, at the high school level, especially in rural areas, and continue through college and law school.
Current efforts tend to focus only on law students who are already committed to legal careers. Partnerships between counties, state agencies, bar associations, universities and community organizations could help build pipelines leading to public defense careers. They might offer, for example, internships and mentoring, or reduce barriers for students who want to serve their communities.
Expanding the pool of attorneys will require years of coordinated investment across states, counties, courts, law schools and the legal profession. Short-term incentives can prop up overburdened systems, but long-term recruitment will be needed to keep courts functioning and fully protect the constitutional right to counsel.
The nation is missing millions of voters due to lack of rights for former felons
March 03 ,2026
If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous
territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the
12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million
people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.
:
Kevin B. Smith
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
(THE CONVERSATION) — If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.
In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.
It may sound far-fetched to conceive of former felons determining the outcome of a presidential election, not by voting but by failing to vote. But there’s a real chance they already have – not just once, but twice. That’s in addition to affecting the outcomes of some U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections.
I am a political scientist with a long-standing interest in the question of why mass incarceration rates vary so widely across states. My 2024 book, “The Jailer’s Reckoning,” explores that question and measures its political, social and economic impacts.
One of my findings is that the sheer number of people who’ve cycled through prisons over the past 40 years is influencing election outcomes.
Scholars vigorously debate the reasons why the United States locks up more of its citizens than any other liberal democracy, or even most authoritarian regimes. Less examined are the consequences of this decades-long social experiment in mass incarceration.
The consequences, however, likely include affecting the results of close elections. Incarceration certainly plays a key role in depressing voter turnout, which lags, in no small part, because felony convictions have made so many people ineligible.
Mass incarceration has led to a fast-growing bloc of citizens who either are legally barred from voting or have just stopped bothering. Under the right circumstances, this slice of the electorate is large enough to tip an election.
—————
Imprisonment and the franchise
Felony conviction reduces political engagement, sometimes entirely. Inmates are legally barred from voting in all but two states, Maine and Vermont. Ten states bar ex-felons from voting either permanently or for some period of time, depending on the crime, absent unusual circumstances such as a governor’s pardon.
In Idaho, Oklahoma and Texas, a criminal record means that as many as 1 in 10 citizens are ineligible to vote. Among Black Americans, that number can jump to 1 in 5.
However, even when legally eligible, ex-convicts rarely exercise the right to vote. Turnout rates among this population may be as low as 10%. Contact with the criminal justice system lowers political trust, which in turn reduces the likelihood of political engagement among ex-convicts.
Although scholars debate the exact partisan tilt of this potential constituency, there’s a consensus that it is disproportionately Democratic. The upper end of estimates suggest that if this group showed up to the polls, 70% would cast ballots for Democrats.
Even estimates that are much lower sketch a picture of an alternative political world. In 2000, roughly 7% of Florida’s 11.7 million voting-age residents were disenfranchised due to past convictions. They represented about 800,000 potential voters.
If 10% of them had voted and, say, 55% voted Democratic for president, that would have translated to a 6,000-vote swing for Vice President Al Gore. In reality, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won the state – and with it the presidency – by 537 votes.
Florida Republicans Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott may have owed their initial, tight gubernatorial victories to felony disenfranchisement, since the outcomes could have been much different if former felons had the franchise.
In 2018, Florida voters did approve a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights automatically to most former felons. But a subsequent law requiring felons to pay off fines and fees has kept nearly 1 million Floridians from being able to vote, according to the Sentencing Project, a group that opposes mass incarceration.
—————
An electorate in the shadows
Serving time behind bars or having a felony record is not a social anomaly. It is an increasingly normalized feature of American life.
The most careful scholarly estimate suggests that at least 20 million Americans have served time in prison or lived under felony supervision, or both. That’s now a conservative estimate, as it is based on 2010 data.
Given their lack of voting habits, the millions of people in this group constitute a vast shadow electorate, far larger than the roughly 2% of American citizens legally ineligible to vote due to being currently incarcerated.
These disenfranchised or absent voters are a quiet force with the potential to reshape American democracy. The statistical models in my book show that in statewide races this constituency represents roughly a 1- or 2-percentage-point swing.
That might not sound like much, and in single-party strongholds it is not. In genuinely competitive statewide elections, however, a percentage point or two can be decisive.
Consider the 2016 presidential election. That year, the Electoral College outcome was decided by Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Donald Trump won all three states by less than a percentage point. Again, the outcome could easily have been different if voting rights for former felons were a given.
In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.
It may sound far-fetched to conceive of former felons determining the outcome of a presidential election, not by voting but by failing to vote. But there’s a real chance they already have – not just once, but twice. That’s in addition to affecting the outcomes of some U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections.
I am a political scientist with a long-standing interest in the question of why mass incarceration rates vary so widely across states. My 2024 book, “The Jailer’s Reckoning,” explores that question and measures its political, social and economic impacts.
One of my findings is that the sheer number of people who’ve cycled through prisons over the past 40 years is influencing election outcomes.
Scholars vigorously debate the reasons why the United States locks up more of its citizens than any other liberal democracy, or even most authoritarian regimes. Less examined are the consequences of this decades-long social experiment in mass incarceration.
The consequences, however, likely include affecting the results of close elections. Incarceration certainly plays a key role in depressing voter turnout, which lags, in no small part, because felony convictions have made so many people ineligible.
Mass incarceration has led to a fast-growing bloc of citizens who either are legally barred from voting or have just stopped bothering. Under the right circumstances, this slice of the electorate is large enough to tip an election.
—————
Imprisonment and the franchise
Felony conviction reduces political engagement, sometimes entirely. Inmates are legally barred from voting in all but two states, Maine and Vermont. Ten states bar ex-felons from voting either permanently or for some period of time, depending on the crime, absent unusual circumstances such as a governor’s pardon.
In Idaho, Oklahoma and Texas, a criminal record means that as many as 1 in 10 citizens are ineligible to vote. Among Black Americans, that number can jump to 1 in 5.
However, even when legally eligible, ex-convicts rarely exercise the right to vote. Turnout rates among this population may be as low as 10%. Contact with the criminal justice system lowers political trust, which in turn reduces the likelihood of political engagement among ex-convicts.
Although scholars debate the exact partisan tilt of this potential constituency, there’s a consensus that it is disproportionately Democratic. The upper end of estimates suggest that if this group showed up to the polls, 70% would cast ballots for Democrats.
Even estimates that are much lower sketch a picture of an alternative political world. In 2000, roughly 7% of Florida’s 11.7 million voting-age residents were disenfranchised due to past convictions. They represented about 800,000 potential voters.
If 10% of them had voted and, say, 55% voted Democratic for president, that would have translated to a 6,000-vote swing for Vice President Al Gore. In reality, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won the state – and with it the presidency – by 537 votes.
Florida Republicans Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott may have owed their initial, tight gubernatorial victories to felony disenfranchisement, since the outcomes could have been much different if former felons had the franchise.
In 2018, Florida voters did approve a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights automatically to most former felons. But a subsequent law requiring felons to pay off fines and fees has kept nearly 1 million Floridians from being able to vote, according to the Sentencing Project, a group that opposes mass incarceration.
—————
An electorate in the shadows
Serving time behind bars or having a felony record is not a social anomaly. It is an increasingly normalized feature of American life.
The most careful scholarly estimate suggests that at least 20 million Americans have served time in prison or lived under felony supervision, or both. That’s now a conservative estimate, as it is based on 2010 data.
Given their lack of voting habits, the millions of people in this group constitute a vast shadow electorate, far larger than the roughly 2% of American citizens legally ineligible to vote due to being currently incarcerated.
These disenfranchised or absent voters are a quiet force with the potential to reshape American democracy. The statistical models in my book show that in statewide races this constituency represents roughly a 1- or 2-percentage-point swing.
That might not sound like much, and in single-party strongholds it is not. In genuinely competitive statewide elections, however, a percentage point or two can be decisive.
Consider the 2016 presidential election. That year, the Electoral College outcome was decided by Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Donald Trump won all three states by less than a percentage point. Again, the outcome could easily have been different if voting rights for former felons were a given.
Failure of U.S.-Iran talks was all too predictable — but turning to military strikes creates dangerous unknowns
March 03 ,2026
Three rounds of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran failed to
persuade President Donald Trump that a solution to the two country's
nuclear impasse lay in diplomacy, rather than military action.
:
By Nina Srinivasan Rathbun
University of Toronto; USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
(THE CONVERSATION) — Three rounds of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran failed to persuade President Donald Trump that a solution to the two country's nuclear impasse lay in diplomacy, rather than military action. A perceived lack of progress in the last of those indirect negotiations on Feb 26, 2026, was enough to prompt Trump to green-light a massive onslaught of missiles that has degraded Iran's offensive capabilities and killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several members of Iran's senior military leadership.
In response, Tehran has launched strikes across the Middle East, targeting Israel as well as Gulf states that host U.S. airbases. At least three Americans have been killed.
While the scale of the U.S., Israeli and Iranian strikes has taken some observers by surprise, the failure of the talks that led to them was all too predictable.
For diplomacy to be successful, both sides need to agree on the issues subject to negotiation and also believe that peaceful resolution is more valuable than military engagement. This clearly was not the case in the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks of 2025 and 2026.
As someone who has researched nonproliferation and U.S. national security for two decades and was involved in State Department nuclear diplomacy, I know that even under more favorable conditions, negotiations often fail. And the chances for success in the Iran-U.S. talks were always slim. In fact, publicly stated red lines by both sides were incompatible with each other – meaning negotiations were always likely to fail.
Iran wanted the talks confined only to guarantees about the civilian purpose of its nuclear program, not its missile program, support of regional proxy groups or human rights abuses. Essentially it wanted a return to 2015's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which halted Iran's development of nuclear technology and stockpiling of nuclear material in exchange for lifting multiple international economic sanctions placed on Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump insisted on limits to Iran's ballistic missiles and the cutting of Tehran's support for regional militias. These were not included in the 2015 agreement, with parties ultimately deciding that a nuclear deal was better than the alternative of no deal at all.
—————
False hope
Nevertheless, there had been a slim chance for a breakthrough of late.
While the positions of both the U.S. and Iranian governments had ossified since May 8, 2018 – the date when the first Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal – there had been some recent movement by Iran, according to former U.S. diplomats involved in negotiations during the Obama and Biden administrations.
With U.S. military building up in the region, Iran appeared more willing to negotiate within the nuclear arena than before. There were plausible solutions to the issue of Iran's enrichment of uranium capabilities, including maintaining a minimum domestic capacity to develop medical isotopes and a removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium necessary to build a nuclear bomb.
There was less openness on other points of contention. Notably, there was no movement on ballistic missiles, which had always been a red line. On the eve of the round of discussions held in Geneva on Feb. 17, Trump stated: "I think they want to make a deal." Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted progress over the "guiding principles" of the talks.
But a lot of this optimism appeared to have dissipated by the time the two sides held another round of talks on Feb. 26. While mediator Oman's negotiators continued to talk of progress, the U.S. side was noticeably silent. Reporting since has suggested that Trump was displeased with the way the talks had gone, setting the stage for the Feb. 28 attack.
—————
Military brinkmanship
The threat of military action was, of course, a continued backdrop to the talks.
The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group was deployed near Iranian waters in January as a signal of support to the Iranian protesters. The USS Gerald R Ford carrier group joined the buildup before the last round of talks.
Trump warned Iran that "if they don't make a deal, the consequences are very steep."
The thinking may have been that Iran, weakened by both the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli strikes and diminished capabilities of Tehran proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, was playing a weak hand in the talks.
Yet Iran also signaled a willingness to engage in military action. In the run-up to the last round of talks, Iran held military exercises and closed the Strait of Hormuz for a live-fire drill. Leaders in Tehran also declared that they would not restrain its response to another attack. The world is seeing that now, with a response that has seen Iran launch missiles across the Middle East and at rival Gulf nations.
—————
Optimism has fallen before
Trump isn't the first president to fail to secure a nuclear deal, although he is the first to respond to that failure with military action.
The Biden administration publicly pledged to strengthen and renew the Obama-era nuclear deal in 2021. However, Iran had significantly increased its nuclear technical capability during the years that had passed since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action collapsed. That increased the difficulty – just to return to the previous deal would have required Iran to give up the new technical capability it had achieved for no new benefits.
That window closed in 2022 after Iran removed all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's surveillance and monitoring under the deal and started enriching uranium to near-weapons levels and stockpiling sufficient amounts for several nuclear weapons. The IAEA, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, maintains only normal safeguards that Iran had agreed to before the plan of action.
Optimism also existed for a short time in spring 2025 during five rounds of indirect talks that preceded the United States bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June as part of a broader Israeli attack.
—————
A more unstable Middle East
When I worked in multilateral nuclear diplomacy for the U.S. State Department, we saw talks fail in 2009 regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program, after six years of on-and-off progress. The consequence of that failure is a more unstable East Asia and renewed interest by South Korea in developing nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the same dynamic appears to be playing out in the Middle East.
Military strikes have already killed more than 200 in Iran and across the region. A wider war in the Middle East is a possibility, and should the Iranian regime survive, it may commit to developing nuclear weapons given that the lack of them proved no deterrent to U.S. and Israeli military action.
Talks do not necessarily need an end point – in the shape of a deal – for them to have purpose. Under situations of increased military brinkmanship, talks could have helped the U.S. and Iran step back from the edge, build trust and perhaps develop better political relations – even if an actual deal remained out of reach.
Instead, Trump opted to go a different route.
University of Toronto; USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
(THE CONVERSATION) — Three rounds of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran failed to persuade President Donald Trump that a solution to the two country's nuclear impasse lay in diplomacy, rather than military action. A perceived lack of progress in the last of those indirect negotiations on Feb 26, 2026, was enough to prompt Trump to green-light a massive onslaught of missiles that has degraded Iran's offensive capabilities and killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several members of Iran's senior military leadership.
In response, Tehran has launched strikes across the Middle East, targeting Israel as well as Gulf states that host U.S. airbases. At least three Americans have been killed.
While the scale of the U.S., Israeli and Iranian strikes has taken some observers by surprise, the failure of the talks that led to them was all too predictable.
For diplomacy to be successful, both sides need to agree on the issues subject to negotiation and also believe that peaceful resolution is more valuable than military engagement. This clearly was not the case in the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks of 2025 and 2026.
As someone who has researched nonproliferation and U.S. national security for two decades and was involved in State Department nuclear diplomacy, I know that even under more favorable conditions, negotiations often fail. And the chances for success in the Iran-U.S. talks were always slim. In fact, publicly stated red lines by both sides were incompatible with each other – meaning negotiations were always likely to fail.
Iran wanted the talks confined only to guarantees about the civilian purpose of its nuclear program, not its missile program, support of regional proxy groups or human rights abuses. Essentially it wanted a return to 2015's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which halted Iran's development of nuclear technology and stockpiling of nuclear material in exchange for lifting multiple international economic sanctions placed on Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump insisted on limits to Iran's ballistic missiles and the cutting of Tehran's support for regional militias. These were not included in the 2015 agreement, with parties ultimately deciding that a nuclear deal was better than the alternative of no deal at all.
—————
False hope
Nevertheless, there had been a slim chance for a breakthrough of late.
While the positions of both the U.S. and Iranian governments had ossified since May 8, 2018 – the date when the first Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal – there had been some recent movement by Iran, according to former U.S. diplomats involved in negotiations during the Obama and Biden administrations.
With U.S. military building up in the region, Iran appeared more willing to negotiate within the nuclear arena than before. There were plausible solutions to the issue of Iran's enrichment of uranium capabilities, including maintaining a minimum domestic capacity to develop medical isotopes and a removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium necessary to build a nuclear bomb.
There was less openness on other points of contention. Notably, there was no movement on ballistic missiles, which had always been a red line. On the eve of the round of discussions held in Geneva on Feb. 17, Trump stated: "I think they want to make a deal." Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted progress over the "guiding principles" of the talks.
But a lot of this optimism appeared to have dissipated by the time the two sides held another round of talks on Feb. 26. While mediator Oman's negotiators continued to talk of progress, the U.S. side was noticeably silent. Reporting since has suggested that Trump was displeased with the way the talks had gone, setting the stage for the Feb. 28 attack.
—————
Military brinkmanship
The threat of military action was, of course, a continued backdrop to the talks.
The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group was deployed near Iranian waters in January as a signal of support to the Iranian protesters. The USS Gerald R Ford carrier group joined the buildup before the last round of talks.
Trump warned Iran that "if they don't make a deal, the consequences are very steep."
The thinking may have been that Iran, weakened by both the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli strikes and diminished capabilities of Tehran proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, was playing a weak hand in the talks.
Yet Iran also signaled a willingness to engage in military action. In the run-up to the last round of talks, Iran held military exercises and closed the Strait of Hormuz for a live-fire drill. Leaders in Tehran also declared that they would not restrain its response to another attack. The world is seeing that now, with a response that has seen Iran launch missiles across the Middle East and at rival Gulf nations.
—————
Optimism has fallen before
Trump isn't the first president to fail to secure a nuclear deal, although he is the first to respond to that failure with military action.
The Biden administration publicly pledged to strengthen and renew the Obama-era nuclear deal in 2021. However, Iran had significantly increased its nuclear technical capability during the years that had passed since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action collapsed. That increased the difficulty – just to return to the previous deal would have required Iran to give up the new technical capability it had achieved for no new benefits.
That window closed in 2022 after Iran removed all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's surveillance and monitoring under the deal and started enriching uranium to near-weapons levels and stockpiling sufficient amounts for several nuclear weapons. The IAEA, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, maintains only normal safeguards that Iran had agreed to before the plan of action.
Optimism also existed for a short time in spring 2025 during five rounds of indirect talks that preceded the United States bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June as part of a broader Israeli attack.
—————
A more unstable Middle East
When I worked in multilateral nuclear diplomacy for the U.S. State Department, we saw talks fail in 2009 regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program, after six years of on-and-off progress. The consequence of that failure is a more unstable East Asia and renewed interest by South Korea in developing nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the same dynamic appears to be playing out in the Middle East.
Military strikes have already killed more than 200 in Iran and across the region. A wider war in the Middle East is a possibility, and should the Iranian regime survive, it may commit to developing nuclear weapons given that the lack of them proved no deterrent to U.S. and Israeli military action.
Talks do not necessarily need an end point – in the shape of a deal – for them to have purpose. Under situations of increased military brinkmanship, talks could have helped the U.S. and Iran step back from the edge, build trust and perhaps develop better political relations – even if an actual deal remained out of reach.
Instead, Trump opted to go a different route.
The humble rotisserie chicken reemerges as a weeknight favorite
March 02 ,2026
In November, social media food influencer Johnny
Novo posted his top 10 grocery store rotisserie chickens, after a year
of sampling the offerings of 100 stores across the United States.
Bella Bucchiotti
Food Drink Life
Food Drink Life
In November, social media food influencer Johnny Novo posted his top 10 grocery store rotisserie chickens, after a year of sampling the offerings of 100 stores across the United States. With more than 20 million views on his posts alone, not to mention the 36,000 other videos on TikTok, rotisserie chickens are once again in the spotlight. Whether you snack on it right out of the package, use it as an ingredient in a larger dish or both, these well-prepared birds are tasty, affordable and perfect for family meals.
People have been cooking meat on a spit for more than 1,000 years; adding rotation to more evenly cook dates back to the 1300s. Boston Market, then Boston Chicken, introduced rotisserie chicken to the masses in the 1990s as an alternative to other fast-food options, and grocery stores soon added it to their rotation. Prices range anywhere from $5.99 to more than $20, but even at the highest price, you’re still getting a fair amount of fowl for your funds.
In case you’re wondering, Novo’s top pick for grocery store rotisserie chicken is Fairway in New York City. Somewhat surprisingly, Walmart also ranks in his top 10.
—————
Bird on the wire
Today, rotisserie chickens are a staple of many American family diets. Rather than hitting the drive-thru on the way home from a busy day at work and school, families can pick up an already deliciously cooked bird. Costco alone reported selling more than 137 million rotisserie chickens in 2023.
From package to platter takes only moments til you’re serving up something special, without breaking a sweat. It’s affordable and generally more nutritious than other options. Just be mindful of how much sodium is on the label. You get the flavorful taste of slow cooking without the hassle.
“I like to pick up rotisserie chicken from my local supermarket because it makes weeknight dinners easier,” shares Maike Corbett, founder of Cheerful Cook. “The chicken is already cooked and seasoned, so I can use it for tacos, soups or pasta recipes. It’s one of those shortcuts that makes busy days feel less overwhelming.”
“A rotisserie chicken is one of the most practical shortcuts in my kitchen,” adds Jessica Haggard with Primal Edge Health. “My biggest tip is to break it down while it’s still warm and save the bones for broth, because that one chicken can cover multiple meals with almost no extra effort.”
—————
Stretching the wing span
Reduce waste by using the whole bird. The average rotisserie chicken yields around four cups of shredded or diced meat. Even if your family consumes half the bird at the first sitting, there’s plenty of protein for future use. Toss the extra meat in with salads, tacos or burritos. Stir in some pasta or fried rice. Mix in some veggies and crust for a homemade chicken pot pie, or take things up a notch with chicken pot pie soup.
Karen Kelly, a health coach and recipe developer with Seasonal Cravings, buys a bird or two for fast and easy meal prep. “My family loves having a rotisserie chicken on hand for quick meals during the week. We use it for tacos, wraps, salads, grain bowls, fried rice or on a brioche bun with barbecue sauce. I take all the meat off at the beginning of the week, and it’s ready to go.”
Robin Donovan at All Ways Delicious agrees. “I love to buy a rotisserie chicken on Sunday and then use it for multiple meals for the week. I’ll often make a big batch of chicken enchiladas with it the first night, and leftovers can stand in for another dinner or for lunches. With the chicken that’s left, I’ll make fried rice or chow mein, chicken salad sandwiches, quesadillas, tacos, or Southwest chicken salad.”
But there’s even more you can do. Once you’ve stripped all the meat off the bones, take a cue from your grandmother’s kitchen and boil the chicken carcass down to create a healthy, hearty broth. The liquid is easily canned or frozen for future use. You can add the meat back in for a homemade chicken soup, or spice it up a bit with a chicken and sausage gumbo.
—————
Plucking your bird
Even as affordable as most grocery store rotisserie chickens are, you want to make sure you get the best value for your dollar. Don’t just grab the first bird you see. First, check for the timestamp. Stores are required to label when they place precooked food in the warmer, and you don’t want one that’s been sitting under heat lamps for hours. If you’re using the bird for food prep, grab the standard, rather than a fancy spiced chicken.
Make sure that the chicken you select is plump and golden. Even coloration is a good sign of even cooking. You want the skin to be smooth and crispy, not shriveled or saggy. Check the container for excess liquid. You want the moisture in the meat, not the lining. Some experts suggest you thump the bird to listen for a deep echo. A bird that feels heavy for its size is a good sign as well.
If you’re doing a full shopping trip, buy your bird at the end, right after you get your ice cream. You want the chicken to be as warm as possible when you leave the store. And if they’re cooking fresh fowl, be bold and ask for the bird you want while they’re boxing them up right out of the cooker.
Rotisserie chicken is best shredded while the chicken is warm or at least at room temperature. If you don’t have time to prep it right after arriving home, refrigerate it and then use the oven to warm it back up. Do not microwave.
—————
Round and round
Rotisserie chicken is having a moment, and it’s well deserved. An affordable piece of pre-cooked poultry that’s perfect for a family dinner as is, or for meal prep as an ingredient in other dishes. At a time when even the federal government gives protein a higher profile, rotisserie chicken can save your weeknight dinners.
—————
Bella Bucchiotti is a freelance writer with a passion for adventure, delicious recipes and authentic storytelling. Through xoxoBella and social media, she shares vibrant travel experiences, mouthwatering dishes and everyday moments that inspire connection.
People have been cooking meat on a spit for more than 1,000 years; adding rotation to more evenly cook dates back to the 1300s. Boston Market, then Boston Chicken, introduced rotisserie chicken to the masses in the 1990s as an alternative to other fast-food options, and grocery stores soon added it to their rotation. Prices range anywhere from $5.99 to more than $20, but even at the highest price, you’re still getting a fair amount of fowl for your funds.
In case you’re wondering, Novo’s top pick for grocery store rotisserie chicken is Fairway in New York City. Somewhat surprisingly, Walmart also ranks in his top 10.
—————
Bird on the wire
Today, rotisserie chickens are a staple of many American family diets. Rather than hitting the drive-thru on the way home from a busy day at work and school, families can pick up an already deliciously cooked bird. Costco alone reported selling more than 137 million rotisserie chickens in 2023.
From package to platter takes only moments til you’re serving up something special, without breaking a sweat. It’s affordable and generally more nutritious than other options. Just be mindful of how much sodium is on the label. You get the flavorful taste of slow cooking without the hassle.
“I like to pick up rotisserie chicken from my local supermarket because it makes weeknight dinners easier,” shares Maike Corbett, founder of Cheerful Cook. “The chicken is already cooked and seasoned, so I can use it for tacos, soups or pasta recipes. It’s one of those shortcuts that makes busy days feel less overwhelming.”
“A rotisserie chicken is one of the most practical shortcuts in my kitchen,” adds Jessica Haggard with Primal Edge Health. “My biggest tip is to break it down while it’s still warm and save the bones for broth, because that one chicken can cover multiple meals with almost no extra effort.”
—————
Stretching the wing span
Reduce waste by using the whole bird. The average rotisserie chicken yields around four cups of shredded or diced meat. Even if your family consumes half the bird at the first sitting, there’s plenty of protein for future use. Toss the extra meat in with salads, tacos or burritos. Stir in some pasta or fried rice. Mix in some veggies and crust for a homemade chicken pot pie, or take things up a notch with chicken pot pie soup.
Karen Kelly, a health coach and recipe developer with Seasonal Cravings, buys a bird or two for fast and easy meal prep. “My family loves having a rotisserie chicken on hand for quick meals during the week. We use it for tacos, wraps, salads, grain bowls, fried rice or on a brioche bun with barbecue sauce. I take all the meat off at the beginning of the week, and it’s ready to go.”
Robin Donovan at All Ways Delicious agrees. “I love to buy a rotisserie chicken on Sunday and then use it for multiple meals for the week. I’ll often make a big batch of chicken enchiladas with it the first night, and leftovers can stand in for another dinner or for lunches. With the chicken that’s left, I’ll make fried rice or chow mein, chicken salad sandwiches, quesadillas, tacos, or Southwest chicken salad.”
But there’s even more you can do. Once you’ve stripped all the meat off the bones, take a cue from your grandmother’s kitchen and boil the chicken carcass down to create a healthy, hearty broth. The liquid is easily canned or frozen for future use. You can add the meat back in for a homemade chicken soup, or spice it up a bit with a chicken and sausage gumbo.
—————
Plucking your bird
Even as affordable as most grocery store rotisserie chickens are, you want to make sure you get the best value for your dollar. Don’t just grab the first bird you see. First, check for the timestamp. Stores are required to label when they place precooked food in the warmer, and you don’t want one that’s been sitting under heat lamps for hours. If you’re using the bird for food prep, grab the standard, rather than a fancy spiced chicken.
Make sure that the chicken you select is plump and golden. Even coloration is a good sign of even cooking. You want the skin to be smooth and crispy, not shriveled or saggy. Check the container for excess liquid. You want the moisture in the meat, not the lining. Some experts suggest you thump the bird to listen for a deep echo. A bird that feels heavy for its size is a good sign as well.
If you’re doing a full shopping trip, buy your bird at the end, right after you get your ice cream. You want the chicken to be as warm as possible when you leave the store. And if they’re cooking fresh fowl, be bold and ask for the bird you want while they’re boxing them up right out of the cooker.
Rotisserie chicken is best shredded while the chicken is warm or at least at room temperature. If you don’t have time to prep it right after arriving home, refrigerate it and then use the oven to warm it back up. Do not microwave.
—————
Round and round
Rotisserie chicken is having a moment, and it’s well deserved. An affordable piece of pre-cooked poultry that’s perfect for a family dinner as is, or for meal prep as an ingredient in other dishes. At a time when even the federal government gives protein a higher profile, rotisserie chicken can save your weeknight dinners.
—————
Bella Bucchiotti is a freelance writer with a passion for adventure, delicious recipes and authentic storytelling. Through xoxoBella and social media, she shares vibrant travel experiences, mouthwatering dishes and everyday moments that inspire connection.
LEGAL PEOPLE
March 02 ,2026
Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that Aleanna Siacon (associate,
Troy) has been named co-president of the Michigan Asian Pacific American
Bar Association (MAPABA). She is also a recipient of the inaugural
MAPABA Rising Star Award. Both honors were announced at the MAPABA Lunar
New Year Dinner on February 21.
:
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that Aleanna Siacon (associate, Troy) has been named co-president of the Michigan Asian Pacific American Bar Association (MAPABA). She is also a recipient of the inaugural MAPABA Rising Star Award. Both honors were announced at the MAPABA Lunar New Year Dinner on February 21.
“I’m honored to be named co-president of MAPABA for the upcoming 2026-2027 year,” said Siacon. “I first became a member of MAPABA as a law student and previously served as treasurer and vice president. Over the years, I’ve seen firsthand how MAPABA bridges generations of attorneys, legal professionals, and law students across areas of interest, cultures, identities and different lived experiences. What makes the organization special is its commitment to the pillars of fellowship, mentorship and community.
“I’m excited to lead MAPABA into this next chapter, while remaining firmly grounded in its foundational values of connection, mutual support and collective advancement – which remain the organization’s compass as we take our first steps into a new year of thoughtful innovation, sustainable growth, and increased visibility,” Siacon added.
As co-president of MAPABA, Siacon will spearhead the organization’s events and programming in the coming year to further advance relations between the legal profession and the public. MAPABA is an affiliate of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and the primary local bar association connecting and advocating for the interests of Asian-Americans in the legal profession.
Siacon focuses her practice on commercial litigation and works on a variety of complex business disputes. She has a passion for civil litigation and all its intricacies and has experience defending and counseling companies, municipalities, and school districts in an array of legal matters from investigation to matter resolution. She is recognized as a leader in her field by Best Lawyers in America “Ones to Watch.” In 2025, Siacon was appointed to the State Bar of Michigan’s Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee, and, in 2026, she was named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Up and Coming Lawyers.
Siacon is a member of the State Bar of Michigan Young Lawyers Section Executive Council, a Fellow of the Oakland County Bar Foundation, and a member of Federal Bar Association – Eastern District of Michigan Chapter.
Siacon received her B.A. from Wayne State University and her law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
In addition, Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that three attorneys have been named to Crain Detroit Business 2026 Notable Women in Law.
Dickinson Wright attorneys selected for this year’s Notable Women in Law include:
Jill Ingber, senior director of Attorney Recruitment and Professional Development, Troy
Monica Labe, member, Troy
Elizabeth Luckenbach, member and division director, Regulatory/Administration, Troy
—————
Plunkett Cooney
Plunkett Cooney partner Glenn C. Ross was recently named a Fellow of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys (ACMA). The newly elected Fellows will be formally inducted into membership at ACMA’s Annual Meeting on Sept. 17-19 at the Ritz-Carlton, Bacara in Santa Barbara, California.
Ross, who serves as Plunkett Cooney’s Business Transactions & Planning Practice Group leader, has 15 years of experience representing clients in numerous aspects of general corporate law, business and commercial matters, and mergers and acquisitions, as well as in transactions related to complex financing. He provides counsel and advice regarding a variety of financing sources for real estate projects and business transactions, including the use of tax credits, conventional construction and permanent financing loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, 221(d)(4) and 221(f) FHA loans, HOME funds, private activity bonds and other federal, state and local financing sources.
A 2011 graduate of Wayne State University Law School, Ross is a member of the State Bar of Michigan. He received his undergraduate degree, with honors, from Michigan State University in 2005.
In addition, Plunkett Cooney partner and Litigation Department leader Courtney L. Nichols was recently named by Crain’s Detroit Business as one of the news publication’s 2026 Notable Women in Law.
Since joining the firm in 2011, Nichols has built an active employment law practice. She serves as outside employment law counsel to numerous Michigan companies, and she defends employers in workplace-related litigation through their insurance providers.
A former co-leader of Plunkett Cooney’s Labor & Employment Law Practice Group, Nichols currently serves as the firm’s Litigation Department leader. She is also a member of the firm’s Strategic Planning, Retirement and Salary and Bonus committees, and she serves as general counsel for employment law issues on behalf of the firm.
Nichols is a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Bloomfield Hills office where she focuses her litigation practice in the area of employment law, including the defense of discrimination, retaliation and civil rights claims. She provides counsel to employers of all sizes regarding complicated employment and labor issues prior to litigation, including compliance with the ADA, FMLA and FLSA. Nichols also assists clients with drafting and enforcing employment policies and contractual agreements.
Nichols was recently selected as a Best Lawyer in America® for Employment Law – Management and Labor and Employment Litigation and as Rising Star by Michigan Super Lawyer magazine for Employment & Labor. In 2024, DBusiness Magazine named Nichols among its 30 in Their Thirties business leaders, and in 2023 Crain’s Detroit Business named her a Notable Leader in Employment & Labor Law. Nichols was also honored by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as a 2025 Influential Woman of Law and as a 2021 Go To Employment Lawyer and 2015 Up & Coming Lawyer.
Admitted to practice in the state and federal courts in Michigan, Nichols is a member of the State Bar of Michigan, and she serves as vice chair of the Labor & Employment Law Practice Group of ALFA International, a global consortium of law firms.
Nichols received her law degree from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2011 and her undergraduate degree from the James Madison College at Michigan State University in 2008.
—————
Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith, PC
Crain’s Detroit Business has named Foster Swift shareholder Dora A. Brantley to the 2026 Notable Women in Law list.
Practicing in the firm’s Southfield office, Brantley defends professional liability claims and claims brought against restaurants, hospitality companies, manufacturers, transportation carriers, landlords, small business owners and governmental entities. She is often retained by insurance carriers for coverage disputes involving auto negligence, fire losses, and construction and toxic torts.
Brantley is the only attorney selected by two Fortune 500 fast food corporations to defend claims and litigation in Michigan, including tort liability and alleged civil rights violations. She previously served on the boards of Ronald McDonald House Charities
Detroit and LIFT Women’s Resource Center in Detroit, an organization established to assist women struggling with various social issues, including domestic violence and substance abuse.
—————
Miller Johnson
Miller Johnson is pleased to welcome Jacqueline Zablocki to the Education practice group.
Prior to joining Miller Johnson, Zablocki served as the Civil Rights/Title IX coordinator for an intermediate school district in southeast Michigan. In that role, she oversaw organizational compliance with Title IX, Title VI, Section 504, and the Title II of the ADA. She led investigations into allegations of discrimination and harassment, coordinated responses to state and federal agency complaints, and provided supportive and remedial measures to students and staff. She also delivered ongoing professional development to administrators, educators, and students on legal obligations related to civil rights, accessibility, and nondiscrimination, while serving as a consultant to local school districts on navigating complex compliance issues related to Title IX and other civil rights laws.
Zablocki graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law and Albion College (B.A.). She is licensed to practice in Michigan and Illinois.
Miller Johnson is also pleased to announce that Fadwa Hammoud has been appointed to a two-year term on the Board of Directors for Leaders Advancing & Helping Communities (LAHC).
“I’m truly honored to join a board doing such transformative work and helping ensure our communities have the resources, support, and opportunities they deserve,” Hammoud said.
Hammoud is the managing member of Miller Johnson’s Detroit office and part of the firm’s senior leadership team. She leads investigations, litigation, and crisis response across industries, representing clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies and government officials to closely held businesses and nonprofits.
Before joining Miller Johnson, Hammoud served as Michigan’s solicitor general—the youngest and first Arab-American Muslim in the role—representing the state in critical appellate matters. In 2022, she made history as the first Arab-American Muslim woman to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning Brown v. Davenport and influencing national precedent in criminal, civil rights, and constitutional law.
Hammoud serves on the Executive Committee of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer to support Michigan’s long-term economic strategy and investment. She has also contributed to the Michigan Middle Eastern American Affairs Commission and advisory committees focused on historically underrepresented communities.
Hammoud earned her law degree from Wayne State University Law School and her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Michigan – Dearborn.
—————
Zausmer, P.C.
Zausmer is proud to announce that Executive Shareholder Cinnamon Plonka has been honored in Crain’s Detroit Notable Women in Law.
Plonka is a litigator who specializes in civil litigation, including no-fault and third-party automobile negligence, employment litigation, and insurance fraud. She practices at both the trial and appellate levels. She is an experienced trial attorney and often serves as the go-to counsel for insurance carriers due to her ability to maintain long-term, high-value client relationships.
In addition to her litigation success, Plonka serves as co-chair of the Law & Civil Rights Committee of Mayor Mary Sheffield’s transition team, Rise Higher Detroit. Her group will advise on legal matters affecting the city, analyze the effectiveness of the City’s Civil Rights, Inclusion, and Opportunity capacity, and advise on protecting residents’ civil rights and access to justice. Plonka also serves on the Board of Directors for Oakland THRIVE and Forgotten Harvest.
Plonka has served on the State Bar of Michigan’s Attorney Discipline Board, as past president of the Black Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, and as a trustee of Eastern Michigan University’s Foundation Board of Trustees. She also serves on Zausmer’s Executive Committee and Diversity Committee.
—————
Varnum LLP
Varnum partner Mallory Field has been recognized as Notable Women in Law by Crain’s Detroit.
Field is a member of the Business and Corporate Practice Team advising emerging and middle market companies across industries on general corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and capital fundraising. Field supports startups and entrepreneurs through venture financings from pre-seed to Series B, advising on SAFEs, convertible notes, equity plans, investor relations, and a wide range of brand, sponsorship, and licensing agreements. She practices from the Novi office.
—————
Bodman PLC
Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that Hebba Aref and Melissa A. Lewis have been selected as Notable Women in Law by Crain’s Detroit Business.
Aref is the co-chair of Bodman’s Banking and Finance Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Detroit office. She represents financial institutions in commercial lending transactions, including the structuring, negotiating and documenting of loan transactions, including syndicated loans, bilateral loans, subordinated loans, and participations.
Aref has been recognized as a banking attorney in The Best Lawyers in America since 2023 and DBusiness Magazine “Top Lawyers” since 2024. She was also recognized in Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Class of 2024 Influential Women in Law.
Lewis is a member of Bodman’s Banking and Finance Practice Group and a member of Bodman’s Syndications team. Based in the firm’s Detroit office, she represents national and regional financial institutions on commercial loan origination matters, including the structuring, negotiation and documentation of agented and syndicated loan transactions.
Lewis is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America under Banking and Finance Law, in DBusiness Magazine “Top Lawyers” under Banking & Financial Service Law, and most recently, in IFLR1000 as a “Notable Practitioner” on the U.S. National list under Banking and Finance.
—————
Dykema
Dykema is proud to announce that Sherrie Farrell and Rochelle Lento have been recognized by Crain’s Detroit Business as 2026 “Notable Women in Law.”
Farrell serves as Dykema’s chief diversity and inclusion officer and advises corporations on complex commercial litigation and bankruptcy matters. She represents auto manufacturers, financial institutions, nonprofits, and government entities in high-stakes disputes across industries. Over the course of her career, Farrell has served as national coordinating and discovery counsel in large-scale litigation, counseled clients on cybersecurity and data breach response, and represented creditors and other stakeholders in significant restructuring matters.
Farrell became the firm’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer and served for many years as managing member of the firm’s Detroit office. Her commitment to inclusion builds on decades of leadership within bar associations and community organizations. She has also served on the boards of Gift of Life Michigan, the Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program, Develop Detroit, and the Wolverine Bar Foundation.
Lento is a member in Dykema’s Real Estate Practice Group and is widely regarded as a leading authority on affordable housing and community development law. She structures and closes complex public and private financing transactions, guiding developers, investors, and lenders through regulatory and funding frameworks that include Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, historic tax credits, HUD financing tools, and other federal and state programs. Her recent projects include the Residences at St. Matthew, Higginbotham Arts Residences, and the Henry Street Redevelopment, each contributing to the expansion of affordable housing opportunities in Detroit.
Lento has played a role in the American Bar Association’s Forum on Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, serving in multiple leadership capacities and co-editing “The Legal Guide to Affordable Housing & Community Development Law,” now in its third edition. Within the firm, she was instrumental in launching Dykema’s Women’s Business Initiative, a program dedicated to advancing women’s professional growth. Lento also serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Detroit Mercy and is active with organizations including Alternatives for Girls and the Detroit Parks Coalition.
—————
Clark Hill PLC
Clark Hill’s Maria Dwyer and Anne-Marie Welch were both selected as Crain’s Detroit Business “Notable Women in Law” for 2026.
Dwyer, a member in the Firm’s Detroit office, litigates employment and business cases and advises senior management in employment and business considerations. She also conducts workplace investigations, investigates and serves as a certified Hearing Officer in Title IX claims, and counsels educational organizations in Title IX issues. She is the member-in-charge of Clark Hill’s Detroit office and the co-leader of the Retail, Hospitality, Food & Beverage Team.
Dwyer was previously recognized by Crain’s as a “Notable Leader in Labor & Employment Law (2023), among her other distinctions.
Welch, member and Labor & Employment attorney based in the firm’s Birmingham office, defends employers in lawsuits and administrative proceedings against wrongful discharge, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related statutory and tort claims. She also prosecutes and defends against breaches of non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements.
Welch serves as the Labor & Employment leader of the firm’s Automotive and Manufacturing industry team and has earned multiple business and legal honors over the course of her career.
—————
Butzel Long
Butzel attorney and shareholder Javon R. David has been named to Crain’s Notable Women in Law.
David is a member of Butzel’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Group, one of the firm’s largest practice areas. She concentrates her practice in the areas of commercial litigation, media and entertainment law, and products liability. She has litigation experience, successfully handling matters from the onset of suit through trial.
As part of her commercial litigation practice, David represents business entities in an array of legal issues, including contract disputes, shareholder oppression claims, non-competition and trade secret disputes, real estate, and automotive supplier disputes.
In addition, David defends media clients in defamation actions and First Amendment cases. She serves as deputy general counsel for the Michigan Press Association (MPA), providing clients with prepublication review and newsgathering advice on sunshine and open-government issues. She advises on clearance projects and performs advertising reviews as well.
She also defends clients in product liability actions and quality disputes, including toxic tort class actions and automotive liability disputes. She previously served on the Board of Governors of MEMA, The Vehicle Suppliers Association’s Emerging Leadership Council.
David is a member of the Board of Directors for the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Association (MDTC) after serving as its Trial Practice co-chairperson.
David serves on the Business Court and Counsel Committee for the Oakland County Bar Association (OCBA). She also serves on the litigation, insurance, and advertising/commercial speech committees for the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC). David is a member of Leadership Oakland as well.
—————
Taft
Taft partner Rick Kruger was a recent preliminary round judge at the Annual Shapero Cup, a regional competition in connection with the 34th Annual Duberstein Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition.
Kruger is a member of Taft’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring and Real Estate Finance practice groups, as well as a member of the Automotive industry group. He has a national practice focusing on both transactional and litigation aspects of bankruptcy law, debtor and creditor rights, workouts, corporate, and financing transactions.
His client representations include original equipment manufacturers, borrowers, debtors, secured parties, landlords, purchasers, sellers, receivers, avoidance defendants, and unsecured creditors’ committees.
In addition, Taft Detroit Partner Sara Kruse has been named a Notable Women in Law by Crain’s Detroit Business.
Kruse is a corporate attorney who has dedicated her legal career to helping clients achieve their goals and position them for success.
She has knowledge and experience guiding clients through the entire business evolution, from formation through exit. Kruse counsels clients on complex business transactions, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, private debt and equity financings, venture capital, strategic partnerships, corporate governance, and other general corporate matters across diverse industries.
Taft Law is also pleased to announce that Mark Rubenfire, Detroit partner and co-chair of the Real Estate Practice Group, has been selected as a member of the 16th class of the Midwest Commercial Real Estate Hall of Fame by Mid1west Real Estate News Magazine.
Rubenfire specializes in acquisitions, sales, financing, and leasing of all types of real estate, including industrial, commercial, multifamily, and residential. He has a range of transactional experience and has worked on behalf of borrowers with lenders of all types, including insurance companies, banks, and commercial mortgage-backed security (CMBS) lenders.
—————
Honigman LLP
Chair of Honigman’s Corporate Department and Member of the firm’s Executive Committee, Kim Dudek was recently honored by Crain’s Detroit Business among this year’s Notable Women in Law.
Dudek advises clients on corporate and financing transactions, counseling private equity sponsors and private borrowers on acquisition financings, working capital facilities, senior and subordinated financing transactions and recapitalizations.
—————
Wayne County 23rd District Court
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced the appointment of Brittany Johnson to the Wayne County 23rd District Court for the City of Taylor.
Johnson is an assistant prosecuting attorney at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, where she has served since 2019. Johnson previously served as a law clerk at the City of Dearborn and as a legislative extern for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. Johnson serves as a board member at the Government Bar Association.
Johnson earned a Bachelor of Science in psychology and criminal justice from Grand Valley State University, a Master of Social Work from Michigan State University, and a law degree from the Michigan State University College of Law.
“I am deeply honored by Governor Whitmer’s appointment to serve on the 23rd District Court. I am thankful for everyone who has supported me throughout my career,” said Johnson. “I am excited to serve the people of Taylor with the fairness and respect they deserve.”
This appointment will be made to fill a partial term following the resignation of Judge Joseph Slaven. Johnson’s term will expire at twelve o’clock noon on January 1, 2027.
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- Judge orders SCOTUSblog founder Goldstein to home confinement until sentencing
- Plaintiff testifies about addiction in trial against social media companies
- EEOC reverses course on transgender workers’ right to choose restrooms
- Amazon sues review-selling websites, alleging fake online reviews
- Police identify employee at assisted living facility in murder of philanthropist attorney
- New directory of private lending options created as student loan regulations shift
