Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judges (2)
- St. Mary’s University School of Law (2)
- Arbitration (1)
- Benjamin Harrison (1)
- Campaign contributions (1)
-
- Candidate-litigated election disputes (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Convention (1)
- Consumer Protection (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Disputed election (1)
- Election Law (1)
- Election cases (1)
- Election law (1)
- Election results (1)
- Electoral College (1)
- Electors (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (1)
- Federalism (1)
- First (1st) Amendment (1)
- George W. Bush (1)
- House of Representatives (1)
- Inc. (1)
- Independent State Legislature Theory (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- John Quincy Adams (1)
- Law of Democracy (1)
- Lobbying (1)
- Margin of litigation (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Independent State Legislature Theory, Leah M. Litman, Katherine A. Shaw
Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Independent State Legislature Theory, Leah M. Litman, Katherine A. Shaw
Faculty 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 H's Presidential Electors Clause, which provides that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature …
"A Mystifying And Distorting Factor": The Electoral College And American Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw
"A Mystifying And Distorting Factor": The Electoral College And American Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw
Faculty Articles
A Review of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. By Jesse Wegman.
Unwaivable: Public Enforcement Claims And Mandatory Arbitration, Myriam E. Gilles, Gary Friedman
Unwaivable: Public Enforcement Claims And Mandatory Arbitration, Myriam E. Gilles, Gary Friedman
Faculty Articles
This essay, written for a conference on the “pathways and hurdles” that lie ahead in consumer litigation, is the first to examine the implications of California’s recent jurisprudence holding public enforcement claims unwaivable in standard-form contracts of adhesion, and the inevitable clash with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisional law interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act. With its rich history of rebuffing efforts to deprive citizens of public rights through private contract, California provides an ideal laboratory for exploring this escalating conflict.
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 …
Applying The First Amendment To The Internal Revenue Code: Minnesota Voters Alliance And The Tax Law’S Regulation Of Nonprofit Organizations’ Political Speech, Edward A. Zelinsky
Applying The First Amendment To The Internal Revenue Code: Minnesota Voters Alliance And The Tax Law’S Regulation Of Nonprofit Organizations’ Political Speech, Edward A. Zelinsky
Faculty Articles
On its face, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is about which T-shirts, hats and buttons voters can wear at the polls. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment analysis in Minnesota Voters Alliance extends beyond apparel at polling places. That decision impacts the ongoing debate about the Johnson Amendment, the now controversial provision of the Internal Revenue Code which forbids Section 501(c)(3) organizations from intervening in political campaigns. Minnesota Voters Alliance also affects the proper construction of Section 501(c)(3)’s ban on lobbying by tax-exempt entities as well as other provisions of the tax law taxing and precluding campaign intervention by …
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.