Law Commons^™

Epic Fail: Harkenrider V. Hochul And New York's 2022 Misadventure In "Independent" Redistricting, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In 2014, following passage in two successive legislatures, New York voters ratified amendments to the state constitution to change both the process and substantive rules governing the decennial redistricting of the state’s legislature and congressional delegation. The constitution now includes multiple new substantive requirements for districting plans, including a prohibition on the “draw[ing of] [districts] to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” It also directs the creation of an “Independent Redistricting Commission” (“IRC”) to draw up, for submission to the legislature, maps that, following an extensive process of …

An Attack On Local Authority, Richard Briffault, Kim Haddow

Faculty Scholarship

In the 2021 legislative sessions, Republican state lawmakers introduced a glut of preemption bills aimed at giving states more power over the administration of local government operations, signifying a new, deeper level of state interference into the inner workings of cities and counties. . . . Entering the 2021 legislative sessions, Republican state lawmakers used their power to respond to the events of 2020 – the pandemic, the racial justice movement, the presidential election, and what they perceived to be local government overreach (Brownstein 2021) – by introducing a surge of preemption bills aimed at appropriating the machinery of local …

Election Law Localism And Democracy, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

American federal and state elections are largely run by local officials. Although election law is almost entirely determined by the federal government and the states, elections are actually conducted by thousands of different county and city elections offices. This decentralization of election administration has often, and fairly, been criticized as resulting in undesirable interlocal variation in the application of election rules, inefficiency, and racial discrimination. Yet, in 2020, local election administration, particularly in large urban areas, was a source of strength. Local officials proved to be resilient, innovative, and attentive to local conditions. The record-high turnout in the face of …

Populist Prosecutorial Nullification, Kerrel Murray

Faculty Scholarship

No one doubts that prosecutors may sometimes decline prosecution notwithstanding factual guilt. Everyone expects prosecutors to prioritize enforcement based on resource limitation and, occasionally, to decline prosecution on a case-by-case basis when they deem justice requires it. Recently, however, some state prosecutors have gone further, asserting the right to refuse categorically to enforce certain state laws. Examples include refusals to seek the death penalty and refusals to prosecute prostitution or recreational drug use. When may a single actor render inert her state’s democratically enacted law in this way? If the answer is anything other than “never,” the vast reach of …

The Promise And Peril Of Local Election Administration, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The administration of elections in the United States—including elections for federal office – is highly decentralized.

Fundamental election law decisions – such as registration and voter identification requirements, and early in-person voting and vote-by-mail rules – are made by the state legislature, but the actual conduct of elections is handled almost entirely by local governments.

Local officials register voters, process absentee ballot applications, design ballots, recruit and train poll workers, manage early voting and election day operations, acquire, maintain and secure voting equipment, and count, canvass, and report the results. In most states, local officials also pay for most of …

Elected-Official-Affiliated Nonprofits: Closing The Public Integrity Gap, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have witnessed the growing use by elected officials, particularly state and local chief executives, of affiliated nonprofit organizations to advance their policy goals. Some of these organizations engage in public advocacy to advance a governor’s or mayor’s legislative program. Others operate more like conventional charities, raising philanthropic support for a range of governmental social welfare programs. Elected officials fundraise for these organizations, which are often staffed by close associates of those elected officials, and the organizations’ public communications frequently feature prominently the name or likeness of their elected-official sponsor. As these organizations do not engage in electioneering, they …

The Democracy Principle In State Constitutions, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, antidemocratic behavior has rippled across the nation. Lame-duck state legislatures have stripped popularly elected governors of their powers; extreme partisan gerrymanders have warped representative institutions; state officials have nullified popularly adopted initiatives. The federal constitution offers few resources to address these problems, and ballot-box solutions cannot work when antidemocratic actions undermine elections themselves. Commentators increasingly decry the rule of the many by the few.

This Article argues that a vital response has been neglected. State constitutions embody a deep commitment to democracy. Unlike the federal constitution, they were drafted – and have been repeatedly rewritten and amended …

A Better Financing System? The Death And Possible Rebirth Of The Presidential Nomination Public Financing Program, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In the spring of 1974, the 31-year-old junior Senator from Delaware, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., published a law review article in which he decried the traditional system of privately financed election campaigns. Private financing, Senator Biden contended, “affords certain wealthy individuals or special interest groups the potential for exerting a disproportionate influence over both the electoral mechanism and the policy-making processes of the government.” Moreover, Biden urged, private funding poses an obstacle to the candidacies of “individuals of moderate means” and so was at odds with the “concept of American democracy [that] presumes that all citizens, regardless of access to …

Covid-19 And The Law: Elections, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

With one Supreme Court decision, lower federal and state court decisions, pending litigation, and proposals around the country for major changes in how elections are conducted, COVID-19 has already had and likely will continue to have a significant impact on election law.

The discussion that follows proceeds in two parts. The first addresses the initial consequences of COVID-19 as an electoral emergency. Voters were due to go to the polls in states around the country just as the pandemic was gathering force and governors and mayors were calling on people to stay at home and avoid large gatherings – which, …

Constitutional Law And The Presidential Nomination Process, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Constitution says nothing about the presidential nominating process and has had little direct role in the evolution of that process from congressional caucuses to party national conventions to our current primary-dominated system of selecting convention delegates. Yet, constitutional law is a factor in empowering and constraining the principal actors in the nomination process and in shaping the framework for potential future changes.

The constitutional law of the presidential nomination process operates along two axes: government-party, and state-national. The government-party dimension focuses on the tension between the states and the federal government in writing the rules for and administering the …

Corporate Control, Dual Class, And The Limits Of Judicial Review, Zohar Goshen, Assaf Hamdani

Faculty Scholarship

Companies with a dual-class structure have increasingly been involved in high-profile battles over the reallocation of control rights. Google, for instance, sought to entrench its founders’ control by recapital­izing from a dual-class into a triple-class structure. The CBS board, in contrast, attempted to dilute its controlling shareholder by distributing a voting stock dividend that would empower minority shareholders to block a merger it perceived to be harmful. These cases raise a fundamental question at the heart of corporate law: What is the proper judicial response to self-dealing claims regarding reallocations of corporate control rights?

This Article shows that the reallocation …

Election Law Localism In The Time Of Covid-19, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In just a few short months, the COVID-19 pandemic has already provoked multiple election law disputes. These have tended to track the same normative and policy conflicts that have marked election law for years, particularly the tension between strict adherence to preexisting rules and the willingness to stretch or relax those rules in order to deal with emergency conditions, and the overlapping debate over whether the primary threat to the integrity of the electoral system is fraud or the legal and administrative obstacles to voting during a pandemic. A third, but much less discussed, strand in the emerging COVID-19 election …

Prosecuting Vote Suppression By Misinformation, Chelsea Mihelich

Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity (Inactive)

Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, concerns about the influence of “fake news” proliferated in the media. Questions abounded regarding the affect social media platforms may have had on the electorate. Election Day 2016 had many in the media pondering: “Did Social Media Ruin Election 2016?” and “Facebook’s failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected?” Two years after the election, social science scholars were still studying the effect of voters’ consumption of fake news stories leading up to November 8. The current fascination in the U.S. regarding fake news and, relatedly, the role of social media as …

The Constitution Comes To The County Unit: Georgia’S State Level Electoral College, David Crockett

Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity (Inactive)

As Prof. Akhil Amar outlines in his work, America’s Constitution: A Biography, the Philadelphia Plan and its outline of a stronger executive power inspired replication on the state level. States from Massachusetts to Georgia strengthened the power of their governors, with many granting them independent elections and a veto pen. Over time, most states replicated the Federal terms of office, and currently all but two states hold quadrennial gubernatorial elections balanced with biennial or other staggered legislative terms. Yet, even as many states replicated features of Article II, from the veto to the establishment of “supreme executive power,” nearly …

The Supreme Court, Judicial Elections, And Dark Money, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Judges, even when popularly elected, are not representatives; they are not agents for their voters, nor should they take voter preferences into account in adjudicating cases. However, popularly elected judges are representatives for some election law purposes. Unlike other elected officials, judges are not politicians. But judges are policy-makers. Judicial elections are subject to the same constitutional doctrines that govern voting on legislators, executives, and ballot propositions. Except when they are not. The same First Amendment doctrine that protects campaign speech in legislative, executive, and ballot proposition elections applies to campaign speech in judicial elections – but not in quite …

Reforming Campaign Finance Reform: The Future Of Public Financing, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress on December 3, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed what he acknowledged was a “very radical measure”: public funding of election campaigns. Roosevelt had previously urged a federal campaign disclosure law and restrictions on corporate contributions, and Congress had adopted a corporate contribution ban earlier that year. But Roosevelt warned that disclosure and contribution limits alone would not be enough to truly reform campaign finance. “[L]aws of this kind,” that is, regulations of private campaign money, “from their very nature are difficult of enforcement,” Roosevelt observed. They posed the “danger” they would be “obeyed …

The Uncertain Future Of The Corporate Contribution Ban, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Concern about the role of corporate money in democracy has been a longstanding theme in American politics. In the late nineteenth century, the states began to adopt laws restricting the use of corporate funds in elections. The first permanent federal campaign finance law – the Tillman Act of 1907 – targeted corporations by prohibiting federally-chartered corporations from making contributions in any election and prohibiting all corporations from making contributions in federal elections. Subsequently amended, continued, and strengthened by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and the Bipartisan …

Leroy Pitzer: Citizen, Voter, Lunatic?, Rabia Belt

Studio for Law and Culture

In a 1905 Ohio case, In re South Charleston Election Contest, Leroy Pitzer was accused of being a “lunatic” or an “idiot” and thus unable to vote in a tight and contest election that ripped the town of South Charleston in half. After intense deliberations – and considering 29 different definitions of lunacy and idiocy – the court decided that something was wrong with Leroy Pitzer, but they could not figure out exactly what. They also could not determine who Pitzer voted for. Unfortunately, without his vote, the election result was a tie and the entire election was rerun.

The …

Three Questions For The Right To Vote Amendment, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Should the United States Constitution be amended to guarantee the right to vote? To the average citizen – and probably many lawyers – this almost certainly would be taken as an absurd question. Most people probably assume that the right to vote is, at least in principle, already guaranteed by the Constitution even if our practices fall short of our ideals. But, in fact, although the Constitution frequently refers to the “right … to vote” – and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has long treated voting as a fundamental right – the right to vote per se is nowhere guaranteed. A …

Coordination Reconsidered, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

At the heart of American campaign finance law is the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo between contributions and expenditures. According to the Court, contributions may be limited because they pose the dangers of corruption and the appearance of corruption, but expenditures pose no such dangers and therefore may not be limited. The distinction between the two types of campaign spending turns not on the form – the fact that contributions proceed from a donor to a candidate, while expenditures involve direct efforts to influence the voters – but on whether the campaign practice implicates the …

The Future Of Public Funding, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The title of my talk today is the “the future of public funding,” and I am tempted to say “there’s not much future” for public funding. The 2012 presidential election marked the first time since the presidential public funding law was enacted in 1974 that neither major party presidential candidate accepted public funding in the general election and the first time that no significant contender for a major party nomination accepted public funding in the primary phase. Congressional public funding appears dead in the water. In the last Congress, public funding proposals were referred to House and Senate committees, where …

Corporations, Corruption, And Complexity: Campaign Finance After Citizens United, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Few campaign finance cases have drawn more public attention than the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court's invalidation of a sixty-year-old federal law – and comparable laws in two dozen states – banning corporations from engaging in independent spending in support of or opposition to candidates strongly affirms the right of corporations to engage in electoral advocacy. Critics – and most, albeit not all, of both the popular and academic commentary on the decision has been critical – have condemned the idea that corporations enjoy the same rights to spend on elections as natural persons. …

On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court dominates American campaign finance law. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically illustrates this basic truth, but Citizens United is nothing new. The Court has been the preeminent force in shaping and constraining our campaign finance laws since Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court's role as arbiter of what regulations may or may not be enforced only continues to grow. The President of the United States can wag his finger at the Court during the State of the Union Address and denounce its Citizens United ruling to the Justices' faces on national television, but even he …

Two Challenges For Campaign Finance Disclosure After Citizens United And Doe V. Reed, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Disclosure moved front and center on the campaign finance stage in 2010. Indeed, the year just passed witnessed the emergence of not one, but two significant challenges for our disclosure laws.

2010 began with new concerns about the burdens disclosure can place on the rights of political participation and association protected by the First Amendment, with the possibility that the Supreme Court – which had become increasingly skeptical about campaign finance regulation since Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined the Court – might impose new restrictions on disclosure.

Election Campaigns And Democracy: A Review Of James A. Gardner, What Are Campaigns For? The Role Of Persuasion In Electoral Law And Politics, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

What are election campaigns for? Not much, according to Professor James A. Gardner – or, at least, not nearly as much as the critics of American election campaigns would have us believe. In his new book, What Are Campaigns For? The Role of Persuasion in Electoral Law and Politics, Professor Gardner contends that instead of serving as settings for extended discussion or in depth reflection concerning political beliefs, the ideal election campaign does little more than make it more likely that the voter will cast a ballot consistent with the beliefs that he or she held before the start …

Davis V. Fec: The Roberts Court's Continuing Attack On Campaign Finance Reform, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Davis v. FEC, decided on the last day of the October 2007 Term, a closely divided Supreme Court invalidated the so-called Millionaires' Amendment, which was a provision added to the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") of 2002 to make it easier for Senate and House candidates to raise private contributions when they run against an opponent who uses a substantial amount of personal wealth to pay for his or her campaign. From the reform perspective, the loss of the Millionaires' Amendment was not of great moment. The Amendment was …

Lobbying And Campaign Finance: Separate And Together, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The relationship between lobbying and campaign finance is complex, contested, and changing. Lobbying and campaign finance are two important forms of political activity that combine money and communication in ways that have significant implications for democratic self-government. The two practices frequently interact and reinforce each other, with individuals, organizations, and interest groups deploying both lobbyists and campaign money to advance their goals. Congress, in 2007, for the first time explicitly recognized the intersection of campaign finance and lobbying when it adopted legislation specifically regulating the campaign finance activities of lobbyists. At roughly the same time, several of the leading candidates …

Wrtl Ii: The Sharpest Turn In Campaign Finance's Long And Winding Road, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II), a closely divided and fragmented Supreme Court, without a majority opinion, held that the First Amendment requires the creation of a sweeping as-applied exception to § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which extended the ban on the use of corporate and union treasury funds in federal election campaigns to “electioneering communication.” In so doing, the Court broke sharply with its 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which had, inter alia, rejected a facial challenge to the …

Public Financing And Presidential Elections, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, legal scholar Richard Briffault traces the history of public funding of presidential elections. He analyzes the implications and prospects for the 2008 general election campaign. He also discusses the challenges facing the system of public funding, as campaign costs increase and public support wines, and possible reforms.

Can Congress Authorize The Opponents Of Self-Financed Candidates To Receive Extra-Large Contributions?, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Is the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment, which permits federal candidates who are running against self-funded opponents to receive contributions significantly above the standard federal statutory ceiling constitutional?

Federal law caps contributions to federal candidates, but the Supreme Court has ruled that limits on how much money a candidate can contribute to his or her own campaign are unconstitutional. This case tests the 2002 Millionaires’ Amendment, which enables candidates for Congress running against self-financing opponents to obtain contributions well above the ordinary statutory ceiling and also imposes additional reporting requirements on self-funding candidates.