Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 2020 Federal US Election (1)
- Article I Elections Clause (1)
- Article II Presidential Electors Clause (1)
- Breedlove (Nolen) (1)
- Breedlove v. Suttles (1)
-
- Conference of Chief Justices (1)
- Congressional Elections (1)
- Dilution (1)
- Disenfranchisement (1)
- Elections Clause (1)
- Federal elections (1)
- Federal judiciary (1)
- Graves (Mary Lou) (1)
- Graves v. Eubank (1)
- Harper (Rebecca) (1)
- Independent state legislature theory (ISLT) (1)
- Judicial federalism (1)
- Michigan Voting Rights Initiative (VRI) (1)
- Moore (Timothy K.) (1)
- Nineteenth Amendment (1)
- Non-dilution (1)
- North Carolina House of Representatives (1)
- Poll taxes and voting (1)
- Racism and election law (1)
- State Legislatures (1)
- State election law (1)
- State election sovereignty (1)
- Textualism (1)
- Voting Rights Act (1)
- Voting Rights Act Section 2 litigation (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Conference Of Chief Justices In Support Of Neither Party, Moore V. Harper, No. 21-1271 (U.S. Sept. 6, 2022), Evan Caminker, Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz, Kathleen M. Mueller
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Conference Of Chief Justices In Support Of Neither Party, Moore V. Harper, No. 21-1271 (U.S. Sept. 6, 2022), Evan Caminker, Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz, Kathleen M. Mueller
Appellate Briefs
Founded in 1949, amicus curiae Conference of Chief Justices (the “Conference”) is comprised of the Chief Justices or Chief Judges of the courts of last resort in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. For over 70 years, the Conference has been a leading national voice on important issues concerning the administration of justice in state courts, the operation of state courts and judicial systems, and the role of state courts in our federal system.
The Conference files briefs …
Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Independent State Legislature Theory, Leah Litman, Katherine Shaw
Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Independent State Legislature Theory, Leah Litman, Katherine Shaw
Articles
This piece offers an extended critique of one aspect of the so-called “independent state legislature” theory. That theory, in brief, holds that the federal Constitution gives state legislatures, and withholds from any other state entity, the power to regulate federal elections. Proponents ground their theory in two provisions of the federal Constitution: Article I’s Elections Clause, which provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” and Article II’s Presidential Electors Clause, which provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature …
To Participate And Elect: Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act At 40, Ellen D. Katz, Brian Remlinger, Andrew Dziedzic, Brooke Simone, Jordan Schuler
To Participate And Elect: Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act At 40, Ellen D. Katz, Brian Remlinger, Andrew Dziedzic, Brooke Simone, Jordan Schuler
Other Publications
This paper provides an overview of cases decided under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act between September 1, 1982 and December 31, 2021. It updates our 2006 study documenting Section 2 litigation through 2005. Of note is the substantial decline in the number of Section 2 cases decided and diminished success for the plaintiffs who bring them. While recent litigation (including Brnovich and Merrill v. Milligan) suggests that Section 2 is likely to occupy, at best, a diminished role in future electoral disputes, this paper shows that Section 2’s reach had already declined significantly prior to recent disputes. …
Mary Lou Graves, Nolen Breedlove, And The Nineteenth Amendment, Ellen D. Katz
Mary Lou Graves, Nolen Breedlove, And The Nineteenth Amendment, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
This close examination of two cases is part of a larger ongoing project to provide a distinct account of the Nineteenth Amendment. In 1921, the Alabama Supreme Court held the Nineteenth Amendment required that any poll tax be imposed equally on men and women. Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court disagreed. Juxtaposing these two cases, and telling their story in rich context, captures my larger claim that—contrary to the general understanding in the scholarly literature—the Nineteenth Amendment was deliberately crafted as a highly circumscribed measure that would eliminate only the exclusively male franchise while serving steadfastly to preserve and promote …