Each week, MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, co-host of our “Main Justice” podcast, answers legal questions from our audience in our MS NOW Membership exclusive series, “Answers with Andrew Weissmann.”
In light of the volume of audience questions about the midterm elections, including about voting and election procedures, this week Weissmann invited former Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer to join him on the show for an election-focused conversation. Richer, a Republican, oversaw voter registration and other aspects of elections in Maricopa County, Arizona, from January 2021 to January 2025.
In the video above, Weissmann and Richer discuss options for people preparing to vote — plan in advance and go early, they advise — and what to do if voters are concerned they have witnessed harassment or that their ballot isn’t being recorded properly.
Eight tips for people preparing to vote:
Become an MS NOW Member to watch all of Weissmann’s answers, get the chance to submit your own questions and explore full episodes of all the MS NOW Membership exclusive series.
The post Stressing about heading to the polls? Here are tips for preparing to vote. appeared first on MS NOW.
Jaxton Tayte Collins, a 21-year-old from Montana, had been out drinking at a bar in downtown Helena before he allegedly shoved a man of South Asian descent and told him to "go back to his country." Those comments, along with an alleged shove, could land him in jail for up to five years.
According to reporting from the Billings Gazette, "the complainant told officers he was walking with friends when a man in an orange shirt and wearing a large cross necklace approached his friend, who is of Indian descent and wears a head covering." The man in the orange shirt, later identified as Collins, "allegedly shoved the friend with both hands and "told him to go back to his country." Witnesses characterized the August 7th incident as "an attack," and called it "frightening."
Officers then arrived on the scene and located Collins nearby. He told cops that he had been at a bar drinking and told the victim to go back to his own country "because he was angry." However, he denied pushing him.
On Tuesday, Collins was arraigned on one count of misdemeanor assault and one felony charge of malicious intimidation or harassment of civil or human rights. Under Montana law, malicious intimidation or harassment occurs when a person "purposely or knowingly, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend" causes bodily injury, "reasonable apprehension of bodily injury," or damages property because of another person's "race, creed, religion, color, national origin, or involvement in civil rights or human rights activities." Collins pleaded not guilty on both counts.
It's certainly plausible that Collins' actions could fall under these criteria. But the question that will likely decide Collins' fate pertains to the alleged shove.
In a statement to Reason, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) says, "The First Amendment protects even the most offensive and hateful speech. At the same time, it does not give a free pass to commit assault."
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the Supreme Court upheld an enhanced sentence for a black man who urged his friends to attack a white teenager because of his race, ruling that states can impose harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias—including racial, religious, and cultural bias—and that someone's words can serve as evidence of that motive.
"So if the defendant assaulted someone because of his race or national origin, the First Amendment likely wouldn't shield him from an enhanced penalty," says FIRE.
Montana's law isn't an outlier, and people have been convicted in other states for less. California, Washington, Michigan, and Illinois all have similar "hate crime" laws that can make it a felony to use force or threaten violence against someone because of their race, religion, or other characteristics.
In 2019, Reason reported on Timothy Trybus, who was convicted of two felony hate crimes in Chicago after drunkenly harassing a woman who was wearing a shirt with a Puerto Rican flag on it. He told her, "You shouldn't be wearing that in America." Tybrus never laid a hand on her, yet his comments upgraded a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge into two felonies. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 200 hours of community service.
Collins' next hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2027. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Collins' words that night reflect a condemnable kind of nativism that is fundamentally un-American. But so is punishing someone for the content of their beliefs. If Collins did in fact shove the man, that could very well constitute a felony under Montana law. But if he's being prosecuted simply for his words, "that would obviously raise serious First Amendment concerns," says FIRE.
The post Montana Man Faces Felony Charges for Telling Man of South Asian Descent To 'Go Back to His Country' appeared first on Reason Magazine.
In Oleshky, the humanitarian convoys have finally arrived. So have the television cameras. After more than four years of Russian occupation, hunger and isolation, the surviving inhabitants of this devastated Ukrainian town have suddenly found themselves at the centre of international diplomacy.
Their predicament has acquired a political significance extending far beyond the immediate question of how to get food into Oleshky and its people out.
On Friday, 30 October, Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office, confirmed that humanitarian assistance had reached the town and transport was ready for residents wishing to evacuate to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, is coordinating the operation. Twenty-five buses, capable of transporting 750 passengers, together with ambulances for vulnerable residents, have been prepared.
The temporary ceasefire, which began on 27 October, is scheduled to expire on 1 November.
The number of evacuees remains uncertain. Ukraine’s prime minister withdrew an earlier estimate, explaining that the figures were changing and that premature disclosures could compromise the mission.
For civilians who have endured years of occupation, the operation offers something considerably more valuable than diplomatic recognition: a chance to survive.
For the governments involved, however, the calculations are rather different.
The White House announced the agreement on 23 October, crediting Melania Trump with securing the humanitarian ceasefire.
It was an unusual intervention by an American First Lady, and one that Ukrainian officials have publicly welcomed.
But the limited scope of the arrangement deserves attention.
Moscow has agreed to suspend hostilities temporarily, permit humanitarian deliveries and facilitate civilian evacuations. It has not agreed to withdraw its forces, reconsider its territorial demands or substantially alter its conduct of the wider war.
The political return, meanwhile, could be considerable.
Russia can demonstrate cooperation with Washington. The Trump administration can point to a negotiated outcome. The First Lady receives international recognition for a humanitarian initiative.
All this comes just days before the American congressional elections on 3 November, offering the White House a visible diplomatic success without requiring the Kremlin to sacrifice anything strategically important.
Whether the operation will actually deliver Republican votes is another matter. There is no evidence that it will materially influence electoral preferences.
But the publicity value is unmistakable.
For Putin, the arrangement offers something perhaps more useful than an electoral favour to Trump: an opportunity to cultivate the image of a reasonable negotiating partner while preserving Russia’s freedom of military action.
There is a deeper irony in Russia’s new role as a partner in Oleshky’s rescue.
Before the invasion, approximately 24,000 people lived in the town. Today, an estimated 1,700–2,000 remain.
The survivors have endured Russian occupation since 2022, widespread destruction, restrictions on movement and severe shortages of basic necessities. The catastrophic flooding following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 compounded their predicament.
Yet Moscow can now present itself as a participant in relieving the humanitarian catastrophe.
The transformation is politically convenient.
Images of Russian officials accompanying aid convoys may help construct a narrative of humanitarian responsibility, particularly for international audiences unfamiliar with the town’s recent history.
Facilitating an evacuation does not, however, absolve an occupying power of its obligations towards civilians.
Nor should cooperation on a single humanitarian operation be mistaken for evidence that Moscow has reconsidered the policies that produced the crisis.
The information campaign surrounding Oleshky is particularly revealing.
On 7 October, Ukraine’s Security Service warned that Russian military personnel were allegedly preparing interviews in which residents would blame Ukrainian forces for their suffering while praising Russian troops.
These allegations require independent scrutiny. But they raise an uncomfortable question: how much weight should be attached to political declarations made by people emerging from years of occupation?
Fear can produce silence. It can also produce conformity.
Civilians dependent upon the authorities controlling their territory may repeat the language of those authorities, whether from conviction, intimidation or self-preservation.
Some residents may genuinely support Russia. That does not make them less entitled to humanitarian assistance.
There is a fundamental distinction between holding pro-Russian political opinions and actively collaborating in crimes against Ukraine.
A state defending its sovereignty need not demand ideological conformity from citizens it seeks to protect.
Indeed, rescuing them irrespective of their political sympathies is a more meaningful demonstration of democratic principles than any carefully staged declaration of gratitude.
The American dimension introduces its own peculiarities.
The White House has portrayed the ceasefire as an achievement of the First Lady’s personal diplomacy. Yet Washington was not the only party attempting to secure an agreement.
On 16 October, a week before the White House announcement, Pope Leo XIV appealed directly to Putin for a ceasefire in Oleshky to permit food deliveries, medical assistance and voluntary evacuations.
Three days later, the pontiff raised the same issue with Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Vatican’s documented intervention does not negate Melania Trump’s involvement, which Ukrainian and Russian officials have acknowledged. It does, however, complicate the suggestion that the breakthrough was exclusively an American diplomatic achievement.
In the meantime, the publicity surrounding the operation has assumed a conspicuous political character.
On 29 October, Melania Trump announced that four journalists from Newsmax, a broadcaster closely associated with Trump’s conservative constituency, would accompany the mission as neutral observers.
The broadcaster’s involvement was also welcomed by Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s special representative for international economic cooperation.
The interests converge rather neatly.
Washington obtains images of successful humanitarian diplomacy. Moscow gains an opportunity to appear cooperative before an American audience. The First Lady receives recognition for an initiative that has produced tangible results where much broader diplomatic efforts have struggled.
None of this diminishes the importance of saving civilians. But the political presentation risks becoming an achievement in its own right, potentially obscuring the question of why those civilians required rescuing in the first place.
The military reality provides a rather less reassuring picture.
Oleshky lies on the Russian-controlled eastern bank of the Dnipro, opposite Ukrainian-held Kherson.
According to reporting by Le Monde, Ukrainian officials fear that Russian forces could exploit the temporary pause to replenish supplies and prepare further operations around Kherson.
Such concerns do not establish that a new offensive is imminent. Nevertheless, they highlight the distinction between a local humanitarian agreement and a genuine reduction in military confrontation.
The evacuation route reflects these security sensitivities.
Rather than crossing the Dnipro directly, residents wishing to reach Ukrainian-controlled territory are expected to travel through Russia and Belarus.
The arrangement avoids an immediate frontline crossing but creates separate concerns about possible coercion, screening and freedom of movement.
Meanwhile, Russia has made clear that its willingness to negotiate humanitarian pauses does not imply a willingness to suspend its broader offensive.
The distinction is critical. Moscow can cooperate over evacuation buses while continuing to launch missiles elsewhere in Ukraine.
For European governments, the danger lies in confusing limited cooperation with strategic change.
The Kremlin has demonstrated that it can make a carefully circumscribed humanitarian concession, receive international recognition and retain its fundamental negotiating position.
The wider implications are significant.
A diplomatic process that rewards Moscow for temporary gestures while leaving its military objectives untouched risks producing the appearance of progress rather than progress itself.
Europe’s interest is not merely in securing occasional humanitarian agreements, valuable though they are. It is in ensuring that negotiations lead towards a settlement that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and does not leave the continent facing an emboldened Russia.
For now, Oleshky offers no evidence that Moscow has moved substantially closer to such an outcome.
The humanitarian mission may save hundreds of Ukrainian lives. If it succeeds, those who negotiated and implemented it deserve recognition.
But political recognition should not become historical absolution.
The occupying power has agreed to help evacuate civilians from a town it continues to occupy. Washington has secured a diplomatic achievement that places few constraints on Russia’s military ambitions.
The cameras will eventually leave Oleshky. The temporary ceasefire will expire.
And unless something more substantial changes, Russia’s occupation — and the war that made the evacuation necessary — will continue.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he would deploy election lawyers and observers across the state to protect voters’ rights, escalating a confrontation with President Donald Trump’s administration over federal involvement in polling places ahead of the elections.
RELATED: More Than 26.6 Million Have Voted Early in U.S. Midterms
The legal teams will be sent to key districts with closely contested races, Newsom said, warning against unauthorized interference in the electoral process.
“A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots,” the Democratic governor wrote on social media platform X.
Newsom also approved legislation making the unlawful seizure of election ballots a felony, establishing criminal penalties for unauthorized interference with ballots.
A warning to Donald Trump:
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) October 29, 2026
I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote.
And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.
The measures follow the Trump administration’s announcement that it would deploy federal agents to polling places to prevent potential electoral irregularities. Trump has repeatedly accused California of failing to address alleged voter fraud.
Speaking Wednesday night on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Newsom criticized the administration’s approach, accusing the White House of trying to suppress votes and create grounds to challenge the election results.
He argued that the administration was seeking to create conditions that could later be used to question the outcome and allege fraud.
The dispute has also reached the courts. On Wednesday, a federal judge rejected a Justice Department request to set aside more than 20,000 mail-in ballots cast in California while authorities verified voters’ citizenship.
The judge warned that withholding the ballots would cause widespread disruption and interfere with an electoral process already underway.
California officials had also questioned the reliability of the voter list submitted by the federal government and rejected its request to verify voters’ citizenship before ballots were counted.
The Justice Department confirmed it would appeal the ruling, setting the stage for further legal disputes between federal and state authorities before the election process concludes.
Login