Columns

Butzel continues to grow with the addition of senior attorney Christian A. Bashi in the firm’s Detroit office. Bashi brings experience representing Fortune 500 employers in litigation, internal investigations, and workplace disputes across the country. 

Bashi defends employers against individual and multi-plaintiff claims involving discrimination, retaliation, employment torts, and wage-and-hour violations in federal and state courts, arbitration, and administrative proceedings. He also prosecutes and defends claims involving restrictive covenants, including noncompetition, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality agreements.

His litigation experience spans jurisdictions throughout the United States and includes claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), and state and local employment laws. He has second-chaired trials involving retaliation, employment torts, and breach of contract, and has represented employers before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and state human rights agencies.

Beyond litigation, Bashi conducts internal investigations and advises employers on compliance risks associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations. 

Prior to joining Butzel, Bashi practiced at a global law firm in New York City where he represented employers in litigation, investigations, and other matters involving legal, operational, and reputational risk. Earlier in his career, he served as a judicial law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert, Southern District of Illinois. 

Bashi is a member of the National Employment Law Council (NELC) and was named a Fellow in 2024. He earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and his B.A. from the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

•            •            •

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced the appointment of Karen Kudelko to the Michigan Citizen-Community Emergency Response Coordinating Council (MCCERCC) 

Kudelko is the director of Federal Affairs in the Executive Office of the Governor. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in history and international relations from Brown University and a law degree from Yale Law School.  

Kudelko is appointed as a member of the general public for a term commencing September 21, 2026, and expiring December 31, 2030.  She fills a vacant seat. 

The Michigan Citizen-Community Emergency Response Coordinating Council (MCCERCC) assists in developing, maintaining, implementing and supporting and promoting emergency response principles, strategies, and practices within governmental agencies and private sector organizations in Michigan.    

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

•            •            •

Foley & Lardner LLP associate Amir El-Aswad has been selected as a member of the Detroit Regional Chamber’s Leadership Detroit Class 47.

El-Aswad, a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation and Labor & Employment practices, advocates for corporate clients in complex commercial and employment disputes across state and federal courts, as well as in arbitral forums. His practice spans a range of matters, including restrictive covenant enforcement, trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement, antitrust litigation, cyber fraud, business torts, commercial real estate, and contract and warranty disputes.

Leadership Detroit is a Chamber-led community leadership program for executives in Southeast Michigan, with a network of more than 2,500 alumni. Since its founding in 1979, the program has increased awareness of critical regional issues while cultivating the next generation of leaders and changemakers.

•            •            •

Ottenwess Law PLC is honored to announce David Ottenwess, John Monnich Sr., Jeff Feikens, and Eric Ramar have been recognized as 2027 Best Lawyers in America.

•            •            •

Jeff Lamb, partner and vice chair of Honigman’s Litigation Department, was recently named as a “Leader in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

Lamb was selected for his accomplishments as a trial lawyer and advisor to automotive manufacturers, as well as his reputation for handling some of the industry’s most complex commercial disputes while strengthening his firm, mentoring the next generation of attorneys, and serving his community.

•            •            •

Miller Canfield Associate Arthur Griem has been selected to participate in Leadership Detroit Class 47, the Detroit Regional Chamber’s nine-month leadership development program for emerging and established leaders throughout Southeast Michigan.

Class 47 includes more than 75 participants from across the 11-county Southeast Michigan region.

Griem is an associate in Miller Canfield’s Corporate and Transactions Group. His practice includes work with businesses and nonprofit organizations, and he is active in the community through his service on the Board of Directors of the Clark Park Coalition in southwest Detroit.

Miller Canfield is also pleased to announce that Frederick Acomb, principal and leader of the firm’s International Disputes Group, has been named a 2026 Leader in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

Acomb has built an international disputes practice group with a reach beyond Michigan, assembling a team of lawyers who regularly handle transnational litigation and international commercial arbitration. His matters have involved parties, witnesses, discovery and assets spanning North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. 

He represents companies in complex cross-border litigation and international commercial arbitration involving post-M&A disputes, automotive and supply-chain matters, intellectual property, trade secrets, distribution and other business disputes.

Acomb has held leadership roles with the International Bar Association’s Litigation Committee and the American Bar Association’s International Litigation Committee and has been active in professional education and the development of best practices for lawyers handling cross-border disputes. He is also a committed mentor who gives younger lawyers opportunities to argue motions, examine witnesses, participate in arbitrations and take ownership of sophisticated matters.

Acomb’s professional honors include recognition by Chambers USA for General Commercial Litigation; Band 1 recognition in Commercial Disputes by Legal 500 US Detroit Elite; recognition by The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation and International Arbitration – Commercial; and recognition by Super Lawyers, Leading Lawyers and DBusiness Top Lawyers. He also holds an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell and received a 2026 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Award for Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Acomb earned his law degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, and his Bachelor of Music degree from Northwestern University.

•            •            •

Dykema is pleased to announce that Laura Baucus, director of the firm’s Automotive, Mobility, and Transportation Industry Group, has been elected to the World Services Group (WSG) 2026–2027 Board of Directors. Baucus will serve a four-year term where she will work collaboratively with WSG leadership in assessing the strategic future and progress of the WSG mission and objectives.

Baucus said, “I am honored to join the WSG Board of Directors. My involvement with WSG has given me the opportunity to build meaningful relationships with colleagues across the network and experience firsthand the value of our global connections. I look forward to working with the Board to build on that strong foundation, strengthen our network, and create an even greater impact for our members.”

Baucus leads Dykema’s 150-person Automotive, Mobility, and Transportation Group and founded and leads the firm’s Supply Chain Group. She represents manufacturers and suppliers in complex supply chain disputes and transactions, often in high-stakes situations where maintaining supply continuity is critical.

Baucus was selected to lead the North America Regional Counsel for the World Services Group in 2025. She has also been recognized by Chambers, The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500 United States, Michigan Super Lawyers, Benchmark Litigation, and Crain’s Detroit Business.

•            •            •

Brooks Kushman is pleased to announce that shareholder Frank Angileri has been recognized as a Corp! Magazine Inspiring Leader.

Angileri is a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, helping clients enforce and defend valuable intellectual property rights. He counsels businesses on litigation strategy involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other competitive assets. His experience is beneficial to companies in innovation-driven sectors, including automotive and mobility, industrial manufacturing, and advanced materials.

By Lee Hornberger

Introduction

The opening statement is crucial in labor arbitration cases. The opening statement gives advocates the opportunity to successfully put forth their client’s case in the most favorable light to the arbitrator at the very beginning of the arbitration hearing.

An opening statement is a brief and general outline of what the dispute is about and what the advocate intends to prove. Even if the advocate prepares a written opening statement, it should be presented orally. 

Furthermore, “[t]he opening statements set the stage for the testimony to come. … They should explain to the arbitrator what each party’s case is about.”    

The Opening Statement serves a unique function

In a labor arbitration case, the opening statement is given in a unique adjudicative environment. This environment differs from court litigation or employment arbitration where the parties will have provided information, including pleadings and briefing, to the adjudicator prior to the evidentiary hearing. Presentation of information generally is not provided prior to a labor arbitration. The labor arbitrator will usually know little, if anything, about the case. At best, the arbitrator only will know whether the case is a discipline or a contract interpretation case and will learn the issue moments before the opening statement. This lack of prior knowledge highlights the extreme importance of the opening statement in a labor arbitration case.    

An effective opening statement is carefully prepared and practiced ahead of time before it is given to the arbitrator. 

Opening statements should be carefully thought out, and not be unduly argumentative, in order to accomplish their purpose to succinctly apprise the arbitrator of the party’s theory of the case and what evidence that party intends to use to prove its case.  

In a discipline case, the employer gives its opening statement first. In a contract interpretation case, the union gives its opening statement first. This is based on both tradition as well as which party has the burden of proof.   If an advocate plans to ask for a burden of proof other than the preponderance of the evidence in their post-hearing argument, the advocate should consider giving the arbitrator notice of that in the opening statement.

To overcome the hurdle of the arbitrator’s lack of prior knowledge of the facts, the advocate must effectively promote the interests of their client, whether the employer or the union. The advocate should not overpromise and should remember that what is said during the opening statement is not evidence.

The Opening Statement describes the issues

The opening statement tells the arbitrator the issues in the case, including both the substantive and procedural issues. The opening statement must clearly inform the arbitrator of the applicable sections of the pertinent documents, including the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), employment manual, established policies, and other operative documents as well as the page numbers in the documents where those sections can be found. It is extremely important that the arbitrator know exactly where in these documents, including page numbers, the arbitrator can go to better understand the case and the parties’ viewpoints.

The advocate should pay attention to whether the arbitrator is taking notes during the opening statement. The pace with which the opening statement is delivered should be adjusted by paying careful attention to the arbitrator’s speed and depth of note taking. The advocate’s goal is to make the arbitrator’s job easier. Sometimes the pace at which the advocate delivers the opening statement, including pauses, can be helpful. The arbitrator’s hearing notes might ultimately be the record upon which the arbitrator’s memory of the hearing will largely be based.

The Opening Statement outlines the facts

The opening statement should, in a concise, clear fashion, outline the “who, what, where, how, and when” of the case. Once the opening statement is completed, the arbitrator should have a clear understanding of who the main actors are, what happened to give rise to the grievance, where the situation occurred, how the situation unfolded, and the timeline of the situation.

The opening statement should also address unfavorable aspects of the case. The arbitrator should not hear these unfavorable aspects for the first time during the other side’s opening statement. The advocate should use this opportunity to present adverse facts in the best light. 

The second opening statement (for example, the union’s opening statement in a discipline case) should usually respond to issues raised in the first opening statement rather than waiting for the evidentiary portion of the hearing. For example, if the employer argues for the first time ever in its opening statement that the grievance or demand for arbitration is untimely, the union should tell the arbitrator, if true, during its opening statement that this issue was never previously raised by the employer. The arbitrator should be told about these procedural issues before the end of the opening statements. By careful planning of the opening statement, including the use of the grievance procedure, the advocate should anticipate the other side’s arguments and effectively respond to them.

The opening statement should be a careful, nonargumentative presentation of the case in a professional and courteous fashion. It will summarize in a convincing manner the advocate’s main arguments, including the facts and precisely what the advocate intends to prove.

The Opening Statement specifies the relief sought

The opening statement should also spell out the relief that the party is seeking. If the arbitrator knows what remedy the party is seeking, it is easier for the arbitrator to understand the evidence as it comes in.

In discipline cases, the union will occasionally refrain from making its opening statement until after the employer offers its evidence and rests. Some believe this approach prevents the arbitrator from having a balanced or full understanding of the case at the start. On the other hand, others believe that the union advocate can better serve the interests of the grievant by not playing the advocate’s hand until after hearing all the employer’s evidence. Deciding to delay one’s opening is an important strategic decision that should not be made lightly. One risk of delaying one’s opening statement is that such delay might give the other side the advantage of the primacy effect. The rule of primacy means that the side heard first will be more persuasive than the side that is heard later. One possible benefit of delaying one’s opening is to hold back on one’s presentation until after the other side has played its cards. 

The Opening Statement in a virtual hearing

In a virtual arbitration hearing via Zoom or other platform, the advocate must consider the different methods and characteristics of communication during a virtual arbitration. Depending on the settings of the observer’s monitor, the screen might display the advocate’s face on the entire screen. In addition, there might be a short delay between the advocate’s speaking and when the speaking is heard by the arbitrator. It is important that the advocate speak more slowly. 

The advocate should also consider using Share Screen to help emphasize the relevant CBA provisions and other key documents. Share Screen is a tool available on the Zoom platform, which allows the user to share the user’s documents on the monitor to be seen by other participants in the hearing. As with other portions of the opening statement, the advocate should prepare and practice the Share Screen procedure ahead of time. The hearing is not the place to try Share Screen for the first time.

Pre-sharing of exhibits occurs much more frequently in virtual arbitration than in in-person arbitration. By using Share Screen, the arbitrator can see the relevant exhibit and the advocates at the same time. In addition, PowerPoint slides and exhibits can be displayed in the arbitration via Share Screen during the opening statement.

In all arbitrations, cooperation, professionalism, and mutual respect should be paramount. The mantra for virtual arbitrations is “be kind.”

Conclusion

An effective opening statement tells the arbitrator in a concise, courteous, fashion exactly what the facts in the case are, what the issues are, how the advocate wants the arbitrator to rule, and exactly what relief is being requested. In addition, with virtual arbitration, the advocate’s effective use of Share Screen during a Zoom arbitration can create a powerful opening statement.
————————

By  John A. Hohman 

The use of facilitative mediation in Probate disputes is now widespread throughout the State of Michigan. Probate cases have many special characteristics and intricacies that set them apart from typical disputes. This article identifies those special characteristics and provides advice on how to address them in the mediation process.

Family Dynamics

Most probate disputes involve members of the same family.  Typically, the participants have known one another for 40-70 years.  They grew up together, shared bathrooms and back seats of the station wagon together. Their resentments toward one another have been percolating for decades. They recently endured the stresses of caring for a dying parent together. They bring jealousy, anger and distrust into the mediation session.  The resentments and distrust impede effective communication and are barriers to open-mindedness. The attorneys and the mediator should be on the watch for the family dynamics in play, and take measures to negate the negative influences and irrational thoughts that are obstacles to effective discussions.  As an attorney, if you are aware of your client’s acute resentments, you should advise your mediator of that problem in advance of the session.

Guardianships and Conservatorships

These are the most difficult cases to mediate, for a number of reasons. The topic is worth its own article. The primary problem is that the person over whom a guardianship or conservatorship is sought may not have the requisite capacity to participate in the mediation process. Often, I have helped to facilitate an agreement between a parent and his/her children, and the parent will renege on the agreement the next day, or when the agreement is presented to the court. It should also be noted that a person cannot be deemed to be in need of a guardian or conservator except through a specific court order.  The court must conduct a hearing and make specific findings of fact, prior to such a determination. While the mediation process can grease the skids for that hearing, it cannot independently create the solution.

Best Day/Worst Day Analysis

Quite often, a probate dispute will center around the validity of a testamentary document.  A testamentary document will either be found to be valid or invalid. This determination leaves the parties with an identifiable amount at stake. Assuming that the approximate value of the estate is known, it’s relatively easy to determine the “best day” vs the “worst day” for each participant, should the dispute proceed to court.  In most other types of cases (personal injury, malpractice, divorce, etc.), the potential outcomes are not so clear. The presence of an identifiable range of outcomes in a probate mediation helps the participants to better understand their choices. I had a case a couple of years ago where two brothers in their twenties would recover $200,000 if they won their case, and $0 if they lost.  After a few hours of mediation in a Troy conference room, their step-mother finally offered to pay them $100,000 to settle the case.  The case had a 50-50 probability of success, in my opinion.  The youngsters told me that they wished to reject their step-mother’s proposal.  I reframed the question.  I handed them a 3 x 5 piece of paper and said, “Here is $100,000. Would you take this $100,000 down to the casino in Detroit and place it on a 50-50 bet? You win and you walk away with $200,000. You lose and you walk away with nothing.”  And then I reminded them that their attorney would drive them to the casino, but the cost of the ride would be about $40,000, win or lose. The boys quickly understood the ramifications of their decision and agreed to settle for $100,000.

Disguised Greed and Self-righteousness

Greed and self-righteousness are present in all disputes, but it takes a different form in a probate proceeding.  It is easily disguised as the efforts of the “only person here who understood what Dad really wanted.” I often have heard a participant state “I am only trying to honor my father’s wishes” [at least those I was able to unduly influence him into making]. That prompts me to ask if their father’s wish was for his children to wage a three-day battle in a public court room where all of his medical records concerning his dementia would be made public, because that is the outcome if the case does not settle at mediation.

—Practical Considerations
Scheduling the Mediation Session

Most probate mediations have multiple participants.  It is not uncommon to have four or more participants (with four or more attorneys) involved in a probate proceeding. This creates scheduling issues. Be considerate of your opposing counsel when scheduling efforts are on-going.  Answer emails promptly, or designate a person in your office to work on scheduling.  It’s frustrating to wait more than a day to get an answer from someone.  It impacts the entire group working on the case. If you reply two or three days after the original scheduling email goes out, it is likely that some of the dates originally proposed will no longer be available.

Payment of the Mediator Fee

MCR 2.411(D)(2) states that “The costs of mediation shall be divided between the parties on a pro-rata basis unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.” Attorneys frequently cite this rule in disputes about payment of the mediator fee.  I do not believe that the rule applies to the typical probate proceeding.  First, a probate proceeding does not have “parties.”  A person participating in a probate proceeding is called an “interested person.” Second, there are typically multiple “interested persons” in a probate proceeding, some of whom have no interest in the mediation. If a charity or heir is not impacted by the court’s determination on the ultimate question, should that charity be required to pay the mediator fee on a “pro-rata basis?” Finally, even if the fee is limited to those participating, should it be divided among the number of “sides” or the number of participants? Sometimes one child is challenging a will. That child may be opposed by four siblings.  Should that child pay one fifth or one half of the mediator fee? I strongly encourage attorneys to get the court’s specific decision on payment of the mediator fee when mediation is originally ordered. The court should identify who is participating in the mediation, and what percentage each interested person will be obligated to pay. I also encourage attorneys to consider whether the estate or trust should pay 100% of the mediator fee. This solution removes costly discussion and argument over an issue that is relatively insignificant, dollar-wise, in the ultimate resolution. 

Notice of the Mediation

Each interested person whose rights may be affected by the outcome of the mediation should be provided notice of the mediation session, even if they have not appeared in the case. Failure to do so may invalidate a hard-earned settlement agreement. The Michigan Attorney General must be notified when a charity is involved.

Mediation in probate proceedings saves money, provides certainty sooner, and allows the parties to compromise in a way that cannot be accomplished through a decision of the court. It also allows delicate family problems to be solved in a private, confidential setting, rather than a public court room. Those who mediate probate proceedings should be aware of the intricacies of that process, and be prepared to address them as they arise.
————————

(Reprinted with permission from the WCBA periodical Res Ipsa Loquitur.)

Attorney Nathan Davis recently joined the Business Transactions & Planning Practice Group of Plunkett Cooney.

Davis focuses his practice on real estate law and has expertise in related environmental law issues. He advises developers, manufacturers, commercial and industrial businesses with the purchasing, selling and leasing of property. This includes performing site due diligence, resolving zoning issues, and drafting necessary agreements. 

In addition, Davis’ environmental law experience includes advising clients on permitting, regulatory compliance and enforcement related to contaminated site remediations, water discharges, underground storage tanks, wetlands, waste management and Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. He has also counseled clients on obtaining brownfield incentives.

Davis received his law degree from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in 2025. He received his undergraduate degree from Hope College in 2021.

•            •            •

The City of Troy has welcomed Ricks & Associates PLLC, a women-owned and operated law firm dedicated to empowering individuals and families through legal guidance, advocacy, and solutions that safeguard the community.   Ricks and Associates selected the City of Troy as it is home to more than 6,000 businesses making it a major regional employment destination and an economic engine for Oakland County and Southeast Michigan.  The firm is located at 1120 E. Long Lake Rd Suite 140, in Troy.

Founded in 2007, Ricks and Associates is a full-service firm serving Southeastern Michigan with a primary focus on real estate law, bankruptcy, probate and estates, contracts, business law, and non-profit law. Managing Partner Urenia Ricks Johnson and Lori Waddles bring more than five decades of combined experience. 

Ricks and Associates is a member of the Detroit Bar Association, Wolverine Bar Association, and Oakland Bar Association.

Ricks and Associates also gives back to the community through its non-profit Corporate Development Institute (CDI) with a mission to educate, mentor, and empower individuals and families through legal workshops, financial literacy and life skills.

•            •            •

Taft welcomes Ginny Ong to the firm’s Detroit office.

Ong joins Taft as AI Utilization Counsel, through which she acts as a liaison between practice groups, vendors, and cross-functional teams to translate AI strategy into day-to-day workflows. She has experience driving AI adoption, change management, and business transformation within law firms with a track record of leading firmwide AI rollouts, spearheading adoption strategies, designing practice-specific governance, and fostering high-level technology engagement.

Ong earned her law degree from the Chicago-Kent College of Law and her bachelor’s degree in psychology and Spanish from the University of Michigan.

•            •            •

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP partner Sean H. Cook has been appointed to the Michigan Accountancy Foundation Board of Trustees, effective Sept. 1.

The Michigan Accountancy Foundation works to attract, inspire, and support future generations of certified public accountants. In partnership with the Michigan Association of Certified Public Accountants, the Foundation supports scholarships, educational grants, student programs and other initiatives designed to encourage interest in accounting careers.

Cook is a tax attorney who advises businesses and individuals on complex tax matters, mergers and acquisitions, closely held businesses, trusts and estates, corporate matters, and nonprofit law. Before beginning his legal career, he practiced as a certified public accountant for nearly nine years.

Cook has a longstanding relationship with the Michigan Association of CPAs. He has served on its board of directors and in leadership positions on its mergers and acquisitions and federal tax task forces, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization.

Cook is based in Warner’s Detroit office.

•            •            •

Kotz Sangster is pleased to announce that Shareholder R. Edward (Ed) Boucher has been named to the inaugural Michigan Legal 250 by Michigan Lawyers Weekly, recognized in the construction law category.

Boucher has practiced construction law in Michigan since 1997 and works with clients at every stage of a project: identifying and reducing risk during planning and contract negotiation, managing difficult events and emerging claims during construction, and resolving disputes afterward through negotiation, mediation, arbitration or litigation. 
His clients span the industry, from developers and institutional owners to general contractors, construction managers, trade contractors, and suppliers.

The recognition marks Boucher’s second honor from Michigan Lawyers Weekly in as many years. He was named a “Go-To Lawyer” for construction law in 2025 and has also been recognized by Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, Leading Lawyers, and DBusiness Top Lawyers.

•            •            •

Fishman Stewart PLLC, celebrating 30 years of business in 2026, is pleased to announce that three partners have been named to the 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers list, and another partner continues on the Rising Star list.  

The following Fishman Stewart partners have received 2026 Michigan Super Lawyers recognition in the noted practice areas:

Michael D. Fishman, Intellectual Property
Michael B. Stewart, Intellectual Property
Barbara L. Mandell, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation

The Super Lawyers Rising Star category recognizes top attorneys who are age 40 or younger or have been practicing for less than ten years. Partner Kameron F. Bonner has again been recognized as a Rising Star in the practice areas of Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Litigation.

By Michael Waldman

Voters had a big win at the Supreme Court last week. What does it all mean?

Last week, the Court refused to allow the Postal Service to implement a new rule that would have curbed mail voting. But the one-paragraph ruling seemed to say more than “not yet.” The Trump administration, the justices ruled, was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”

This was great news for the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting, the method now used by one in three voters. It was utterly bonkers that the White House tried to exert control over the election system. That’s illegal, a fact now confirmed over and over. The Brennan Center was proud to be part of the legal team representing voters before the Supreme Court.

President Trump’s drive to undermine the election is failing. Time and again, his moves have been parried or blocked.

Voters, the coast is clear. You can vote with confidence. It’s five weeks until Election Day. Make a plan. Vote early in person. Vote as early as possible via the Postal Service. Vote via a drop box. Vote on Election Day. Make your voice heard.

Yes, let’s exhale. But also let’s not lose sight of some bigger lessons.

Trump has not given up on trying to mess up and undermine the election. Repeatedly, courts have had to step in to protect the rule of law, blocking the executive order that mandated the USPS rule, the order before that, and very possibly whatever comes next. Whistleblowers keep popping up to reveal new depredations, such as the violations of state law by the Department of Homeland Security that were uncovered this week.

Just know that voting rights groups, state and local governments, election officials, and judges around the country have your back.

Then there’s the Supreme Court. It did the right thing here. But the situation should not have been this hard. This Court helped create the chaos and confusion three weeks ago when it allowed Trump’s mail ballot plan to go forward.

And this whole election takes place in a political system transformed by the Roberts Court. A flood of billionaire funding and dark money thanks to Citizens United and other rulings. Frenzied gerrymandering. And, all too often, a green light for voter suppression. It has been two decades since the Supreme Court blocked a state from enacting a restrictive voting law. After the Louisiana v. Callais ruling in April that demolished what was left of the Voting Rights Act, southern states rapidly redrew congressional maps to eliminate districts where Black voters had a fair chance to elect candidates who represented them. Expect more fights about district maps next year.

As for the states, there is some good news: In the recent mail balloting case, 24 state attorneys general filed litigation. Opposition to USPS’s antics did not fall strictly along party lines, with seven Republican-led states separately telling the Court that Trump’s plan to disrupt the existing system was unworkable. That’s all encouraging.

But far too many states are colluding in efforts to take rights from their own citizens. In numerous states, our research shows, voters will go to the polls with restrictions put in place since 2024. Unscrupulous politicians have free rein to concoct new restrictive rules.

All this adds up to an argument for strong new national laws to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I’m done with trench warfare on voting. We can’t let vote deniers trash our elections, in Washington or in state capitols. Squalid moments like this one must be followed by reform and renewal.

Today the Brennan Center released Eight Solutions to Protect Voting Rights and Improve Representation, the most recent in a series of papers laying out solutions to our most pressing issues. Already we have published proposals on political corruption, Supreme Court reform, and congressional reform. This new raft of proposed actions would respond to the assaults on voting and representation still underway.

Congress can pass a national law, for example, banning partisan gerrymandering and barring mid-decade redistricting. That would significantly bolster competition and representation across the country, applying to red states and blue states alike. And it would eliminate the Supreme Court’s ridiculous rule in Callais that partisanship serves as an excuse for states drawing racially discriminatory maps.

What about the freedom to vote in the wake of the Court’s other damaging decisions? Citizens should be able to defend their own voting rights in court when they are impinged upon. Surprisingly, no such law exists assuring access to the courts today. With the Voting Rights Act smashed to bits, an even broader statute would give voters the ability to protect themselves. Voters who have suffered racial discrimination should not face court-imposed barriers to vindicating their rights.

We also need national standards to ensure that citizens everywhere can vote by mail, vote early, be automatically registered, and take advantage of the myriad ways we have improved access. We should expand the size of the House of Representatives, a change conservative scholar Yuval Levin and others have urged, to widen 
representation. And it’s past time to admit the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states, as their citizens have repeatedly supported. And more.

Believe it or not, Congress has the power to do all these things. Yes, gridlocked, polarized, much-maligned Congress. The branch of government closest to the people should take the lead in restoring power to the people.

We must never, ever get used to the idea that the president of the United States routinely denigrates our democracy. We should not have to wait with bated breath to see whether the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

The law is clear: States run elections. But the Constitution gives Congress a role, too: It can pass national legislation. It should use that explicitly granted power to do what it has at other times, to lift the floor under voters and ensure protections. When it comes to voting rights, presidents should stay out. Congress should jump in.
————————
Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer, has led the center since 2005.

By Berl Falbaum

Some 600 Democratic Jewish “leaders,” who consider themselves “pro-Israel,” have distributed a letter in which they endorse the Michigan Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Abdul El-Sayed.

That begs the question(s):

How much more “pro-Israel” can you get when you support a man who refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?

Is it possible to be more “pro-Israel” when you back El-Sayed who accepted $115,000 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a Muslim country?  Some 40 of CAIR’s former and present officials reportedly have/had ties to Hamas.

Can you be more “pro-Israel” when you promote El-Sayed who accuses Israel of genocide?

What about El-Sayed’s campaigning with Hasan Piker, the streamer who spewed continuous anti-Jewish venom? Would these leaders have endorsed El-Sayed if, let’s say, he campaigned with David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard who founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? I don’t believe so — and rightly so.

Arlene Frank, a Jewish El-Sayed supporter, in a Deadline Detroit article, described his Israel policy as “thoughtful” and “nuanced”. I guess we should be thankful he isn’t more strident toward the Jewish state.

As they say, with “friends” like El-Sayed, who needs enemies.

In their statement, the signatories, said, “There are disagreements with El-Sayed on important issues, including aspects of his approach to Israel and the language used by some of his allies. These concerns remain serious for many of us, and we will vote for El-Sayed.”

Yes, they have “serious concerns” but they will vote for him. Now, who can argue with that logic? Makes perfect sense.

Among those who put his John Hancock on the document is retired Congressman Sander Levin. He advised us:

“I have been a strong proponent of a two-state solution to that crisis and he has not supported this approach. Yet, as I reflect, I must say that I have had disagreements with many colleagues in the House and Senate over the decades, but I have never failed to support the full Democratic ticket.”

We feel it’s somewhat insulting to have to explain to the good former congressman that there is a difference between disagreeing on such issues such as health care, military spending, taxes, etc., and embracing the Jew-hatred of your colleagues. 

He ignores the fact that Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel would not attend her own party’s convention because she, being a Jew, did not feel safe. Then she recommended that Jews should sacrifice themselves and the State of Israel in order to save the world.

Levin managed to condemn “terrible anti-Muslim bigotry” against El-Sayed — for which he should be commended — but he cannot bring himself to denounce antisemitism.

It is all hail to the party; party “?ber alles.” Do those two words sound familiar? They should. If not, look them up and you’ll find some troubling parallels in history.

The letter states, “…that the candidate’s positions on Israel and Iran are much less outside the mainstream of the contemporary foreign-policy debate than some of the charged rhetoric surrounding his candidacy might suggest.”

That’s exactly the point. Antisemitism has become mainstream while infecting the country, particularly the Democratic Party, and rather than censure the bigots and fight the hatred, they embrace it because it’s part of the “mainstream” giving the antisemites much-valued cover.

Such a letter, it should not be ignored, gives antisemites comfort throughout the world.  

They can point to these leaders, Jews yet, as agreeing to all the defamatory charges made against Israel and deny their antisemitism.

Never mind that only Israeli artists, lecturers, athletes are banned in many countries while representatives from Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China et al. — all freedom-loving democracies — escape any sanctions.

Meanwhile, about 20 Reform and Conservative rabbis issued an open letter of their own in which they make five “non-negotiable” demands.  It does not name El-Sayed but it was clearly directed at him. The demands:

—Jewish safety, including for Zionist Jews, in Michigan and across America;
—The right to define their own Jewish identities;
—Jewish sovereignty in Israel;
—Welcoming their full participation in American political life; and
—An affirmative vision for a better future in the Middle East.

Hardly outlandish demands. These rights should not even have to be demanded. Indeed, it’s sad that political realities require reaffirmation to these principles from our political leaders.

This petition stated:

“Treating Israel’s existence as a live question; using eliminationist language to describe Israel; raising an objection to ‘ethnostates’ that is never raised about any other state; or vilifying Israel as uniquely malevolent, are variations of the same demand: the dismantlement of only 1 out of the 193 countries in the world.” It added:

“We reject cleverly worded arguments advanced to return the Jewish people to statelessness and powerlessness, a position that a supermajority of Jews, everywhere recognizes as genocide.”

El-Sayed’s campaign office was asked to comment on this petition but, according to news reports, it did not respond.

While the timing of the following may be coincidental, it is worth noting that the October issue of Atlantic, a left of center magazine, has a story headlined, “The Jews Who Voted for Hitler.” Subtitled: “What Happened When Members of a Minority Community Cast Their Lot with a Political Leader who Despises them.”

And Momentum, also left of center, in quoting from a book by historian/author Philipp Nielson, wrote in its spring 2025 issue: “Conservative Jews had every intention [of] marching with Hitler’s regime.” (The magazine was co-founded by Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz-Buchenwald survivor, author of 57 books, including the classic Night, human rights activist, and Nobel laureate.)

To emphasize, these are very liberal publications.

As I study and write about this campaign and the hatred directed at Jews here and globally, I can’t get the words “über alles” out of my head.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.