This was just a first step. There is more work to do.

There is a real question of whether nine unelected federal judges know exactly what's best for Vermont politics, and maybe local politicians have a better sense of what's best for local politics. This is a tension between expressive rights on one hand, and the ability of local citizens to control the election rules in their own states and communities.

If states go too far and pass spending limits that are too low, that might be seen as an effort to entrench incumbents.

I think it showed her the human side of the legal issues she'll confront. The question is: Who will she be as a judge? Will she bring those same sensitivities to the bench as a judge? My hope is that she will - just as Justice O'Connor did.

There's an acknowledgement in her comments that race matters and is relevant, and from a fairness standpoint, we should acknowledge the impact of a particular political structure on voters of color. It's not unlike something you could see Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying. A rigid quota system may be bad, but diversity is a compelling interest, and we want institutions to reflect society as a whole.

If the court says this particular spending limit in Vermont is unconstitutional but there may be cases in which spending limits are warranted, that would certainly be a victory for the parties defending this law.