Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judges (2)
- St. Mary’s University School of Law (2)
- Benjamin Harrison (1)
- Campaign contributions (1)
- Candidate-litigated election disputes (1)
-
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Convention (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Disputed election (1)
- Election cases (1)
- Election law (1)
- Election results (1)
- Electoral College (1)
- Electors (1)
- George W. Bush (1)
- House of Representatives (1)
- John Quincy Adams (1)
- Margin of litigation (1)
- Minority president (1)
- Negotiated outcome (1)
- Partisan interests (1)
- Partisan loyalty (1)
- Political party affiliation (1)
- Right to vote (1)
- Rishi Batra (1)
- Rutherford B. Hayes (1)
- State courts (1)
- Stephen M. Sheppard (1)
- United States Code (1)
- Winner take all (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden
Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden
Faculty Articles
This Article explores the growing divide between the Roberts Court’s treatment of the free speech rights of wealthy individuals and corporations in campaign finance cases as compared to its treatment of the rights of public-sector labor unions and their members. First, it highlights some internal contradictions in the Janus Court’s analysis. Then, it discusses the growing—yet mostly ignored—divergence in the Court’s treatment of corporate and labor speakers with respect to the use of market influence to achieve political influence.The Article has two Parts. In Part I, I explain how the Court reached its decision in Janus before critiquing the decision’s …
Judging Law In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna Shepherd
Judging Law In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
In Part I, we introduce our earlier work on election cases and judicial partisanship before setting forth our new approach to studying the influence of law on judicial decisionmaking. We describe the special nature of the election cases in our database that allow more persuasive inferences of judicial partisanship than typically derived in empirical work on judicial behavior. We then explain our new approach for measuring case strength based on counterpartisan decisionmaking by judges. In Part II, we apply our approach to case strength to our dataset and present our results. In a nutshell, partisanship appears to matter as expected …
The Long Shadow Of Bush V. Gore: Judicial Partisanship In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna M. Shepherd
The Long Shadow Of Bush V. Gore: Judicial Partisanship In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna M. Shepherd
Faculty Articles
Bush v. Gore decided a presidential election and is the most dramatic election case in our lifetime, but cases like it are decided every year at the state level. Ordinary state courts regularly decide questions of election rules and administration that effectively determine electoral outcomes hanging immediately in the balance. Election cases like Bush v. Gore embody a fundamental worry with judicial intervention into the political process: outcome-driven, partisan judicial decisionmaking. The Article investigates whether judges decide cases, particularly politically sensitive ones, based on their partisan loyalties more than the legal merits of the cases. It presents a novel method …
A Case For The Electoral College And For Its Faithless Elector, Stephen M. Sheppard
A Case For The Electoral College And For Its Faithless Elector, Stephen M. Sheppard
Faculty Articles
Every four years, the cry goes up to destroy the Electoral College. That cry is especially loud in years when a candidate is elected president who receives a minority of the votes. The election of a "minority president" happened with the election of 2000, but it had happened before. The Electoral College has elected three presidents whom a majority of the voters voted against: Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000. (A fourth president was also elected with a minority of the popular vote—John Quincy Adams in 1824—through that election was by …
Resolving Disputed Elections Through Negotiation, Rishi Batra
Resolving Disputed Elections Through Negotiation, Rishi Batra
Faculty Articles
Could a disputed election—one in which the winner is not clear and the result is within the "margin of litigation"—be resolved through a negotiated result? Given the "winner take all" nature of these elections, where one candidate ends up holding the office, and all others do not, it would seem that negotiated solutions and other alternative dispute resolution techniques would have no application. This article explores why self-interested candidates and their associated parties may be interested in a negotiated outcome, what the scope of such an agreement could look like, and how to overcome barriers to such a negotiated result.