Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel
Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In determining the shape of the free speech rights and anti-corruption concerns that courts must balance in campaign finance cases, judges are influenced by their own underlying understandings of what an ideal democracy should look like. For judges to decide whether the government is appropriately regulating the political process, the rules that allow all citizens to interact with and shape their democracy, judges must first decide what that democracy ought to look like. This affords judges a great deal of discretion in campaign finance cases. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a particularly bold judicial attempt to reshape the …
Racial Redistricting In A Post-Racial World, Gilda R. Daniels
Racial Redistricting In A Post-Racial World, Gilda R. Daniels
All Faculty Scholarship
The 2011 redistricting will provide some interesting challenges for minority voting rights. How can we preserve minority electoral opportunities and gains in the wake of Bartlett v. Strickland and Georgia v. Ashcroft? What is the impact on future voting rights litigation and are coalition district claims viable as an opportunity to continue the electoral gains made since the passage of the Voting Rights Act? Are majority-minority districts safe from legislative backsliding? The Supreme Court's construed admonitions against race-conscious redistricting in recent cases may become cautionary tales. This Article discusses the central role the Voting Rights Act should play in preserving …
Documentary Disenfranchisement, Jessie Allen
Documentary Disenfranchisement, Jessie Allen
Articles
In the generally accepted picture of criminal disenfranchisement in the United States today, permanent voting bans are rare. Laws on the books in most states now provide that people with criminal convictions regain their voting rights after serving their sentences. This Article argues that the legal reality may be significantly different. Interviews conducted with county election officials in New York suggest that administrative practices sometimes transform temporary voting bans into lifelong disenfranchisement. Such de facto permanent disenfranchisement has significant political, legal, and cultural implications. Politically, it undermines the comforting story that states’ legislative reforms have ameliorated the antidemocratic interaction of …