Vox Welcomes Naureen Khan as Senior Editor, Culture and Features

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, running against Republican Susan Collins in Maine, called for Democrats to exercise ethics oversight of the Supreme Court and pursue impeachment of justices if they retake the Senate.

Platner argued in front of a crowed, if Supreme Court justices faced the same ethical standards as lower court judges, "there is a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two," likely referencing Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

According to a ProPublica report, Thomas accepted undisclosed luxury gifts from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, while Alito took luxury trips with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer tied to entities opposing Biden's student loan forgiveness. Alito also faced scrutiny over a Christian nationalism flag displayed at his residence.

Platner additionally supports expanding the Court's size with a simple majority vote if Democrats control the White House and Senate, arguing Democrats must elect senators willing to "wield power" effectively.

Democrats are projected to retake the House of Representatives and have gained popularity in the Senate, where Platner's win could impact the Supreme Court.

Watch the video below.

President Donald Trump's executive order demanding states put new procedures in place for mail-in voting and turn over information about who is voting by mail is almost certain to be struck down in court, Jim Saksa wrote for Democracy Docket on Friday — but that's not the only way it could derail Trump's ambitions.

That's because this order could also undermine one of the main arguments Trump's Justice Department has used in court to defend the lawsuits filed against dozens of states to seize their voting rolls.

"In those lawsuits, the DOJ has claimed it needs millions of voters’ private sensitive data in order to ensure the states are complying with federal laws that require states to take steps to ensure accurate rolls," said the report. "But outside of court, DOJ officials like Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon have undermined that claim by boasting that the state voter records they’ve already obtained have been used to verify citizenship status using the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program."

After judges began ruling against the lawsuits on these grounds, DOJ officials backpedaled somewhat and said there was no plan to help the Department of Homeland Security build a national database of voters.

Trump, however, may have blown that excuse by outright acknowledging in his executive order that he "directs DHS to create a nationwide voter registration database," noted the report.

"Along with Dhillon’s statements and Trump’s orders, the DOJ’s courtroom attestations have been impeached repeatedly," wrote Saksa. For example, "last week, CBS reported that DOJ and DHS were working to formalize a data-sharing agreement for the voter rolls. And on the same day Tucker was assuring a federal judge that the DOJ wouldn’t share state records with DHS, Eric Neff, acting chief of the DOJ’s Voting Rights Section, admitted to another judge in Rhode Island that they, in fact, would."

Trump's lawsuits for state voting data are not just limited to Democratic-controlled states, but even some Republican-controlled states where GOP election officials have concluded sharing the data would be illegal. Some of these lawsuits have run into legal blunders, including the revelation that there was no proof the suit against Washington State was properly served.