Scholars Explore Voting Rights, AI, and the Future of Elections at UC Law SF
March 4, 2026
UC Law San Francisco hosted a full-day symposium on February 6 that brought together leading scholars and practitioners to examine voting rights, redistricting, and the fast-moving intersection of AI and democracy. The Constitutional Quarterly's spring symposium-co-sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Democracy-centered on practical realities of election law now and what's coming next.
Opening the event, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu joined UC Law SF Chancellor & Dean David Faigman for a candid discussion on recent federal litigation and efforts to protect state voter files. Chiu closed with a clear ask to law students and early-career attorneys: choose public service with intent, and pursue the impact you want your work to have. A recording of their conversation is available.
Panel 1: Redistricting in Texas and California
The first panel zeroed in on current redistricting activity in Texas and California, including a focused review of California Proposition 50 and its potential effects. Panelists also addressed the broader legal and political climate around electoral districts ahead of the next election cycle.
Professor Reuel Schiller moderated the discussion with insights from Margaret Prinzing (Olson Remcho), Andrew Shen (Renne Public Law Group), Eric McGhee (Public Policy Institute of California), and Brittany Stonesifer (Common Cause California). A recording of the panel is available.
Panel 2: Artificial Intelligence and Democracy
The second panel unpacked how emerging AI systems affect voting rights, free and fair elections, and democratic governance. The conversation highlighted gaps in existing statutes and enforcement, and surveyed new state-level rules taking shape in California and beyond.
Center for Constitutional Democracy Executive Director Nicole Ozer moderated the panel with Matt Cagle (ACLU of Northern California), Brittan Heller (Stanford Law School), Shu Dar Yao (Lucid Capitalism), and David Evan Harris, Micah Weinberg, and Vera Zakem (UC Berkeley). A recording of their discussion is available.
Panel 3: The Voting Rights Act-Past, Present, and What's Next
Panel three revisited the history of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and examined how the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais could recalibrate voting rights protections. The discussion worked through Equal Protection doctrine, the mechanics and purposes of gerrymandering, and the statutory text of Section 2 with an eye on how enforcement may shift.
Professor Zachary Price moderated the panel with Professor Matthew Coles (UC Law SF), Nicholas Green (California DOJ, Civil Rights Enforcement Section), and Jesse Mainardi (UC Law SF). A recording of the panel is available.
Rule of Law and Democracy: Structures, Stress Tests, and Resilience
After a short-form screening of the PBS documentary, The American Revolution, a closing panel tackled the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. democratic structures and current threats to the rule of law. Ozer moderated a discussion with Faigman, Schiller, and NYU Law Professor Emeritus Burt Neuborne.
The takeaway was straightforward: the rule of law is not self-executing. It relies on civic engagement and a shared commitment to constitutional governance-even as democratic institutions have shown notable resilience. A recording of the discussion is available.
"It was wonderful to help support the CLQ spring symposium," Ozer said. "The full day of discussion reflects the Center for Constitutional Democracy's ongoing commitment to fostering rigorous dialogue on pressing constitutional issues and supporting innovative work across strategy to defend and advance rights, justice, and democracy."
What Legal Practitioners Should Watch
- Redistricting litigation in Texas and California: monitor timelines, remedial maps, and any interplay with California Proposition 50 as analyzed by panelists.
- AI governance in elections: expect more state rules on deceptive media, disclosure, and platform duties; plan for compliance and rapid response in the 2026 cycle.
- Section 2 enforcement: track how Louisiana v. Callais may alter standards, burdens, or remedies in vote dilution cases.
- Public records and voter file protection: anticipate ongoing litigation and operational safeguards that affect discovery, data retention, and privacy obligations.
Action Steps for Counsel
- Conduct pre-election audits: content moderation policies, political ad review protocols, and synthetic media detection for campaigns, platforms, or media partners.
- Update litigation playbooks: preserve evidence for redistricting and Section 2 matters; refine expert engagement strategies on demographics, polarization, and AI provenance.
- Brief clients on state AI laws: track definitions, notice/labeling rules, and private rights of action; align with advertising, consumer protection, and defamation exposure.
- Train teams: run tabletop exercises for deepfake response, emergency injunctive relief, and election-day incident escalation. See also AI for Legal.
Further Reading
Your membership also unlocks:
