Election Law Commons^™

Democratic Erosion And The United States Supreme Court, Jenny Breen

Utah Law Review

For many decades, confidence in American institutions and political culture consistently led scholars to sideline questions about “regime change” in the United States. And for many years, that approach seemed justified. Democratic institutions were firmly rooted and stable, and American voters participated in free and fair elections that resulted in the peaceful transfer of power between parties and candidates. Then came the campaign of Donald Trump and all that has followed since, including open challenges to the most basic and fundamental democratic norms. These changes have led many voters, commentators, and scholars to ask: Is democracy eroding in the United …

Defeat Fascism, Transform Democracy: Mapping Academic Resources, Reframing The Fundamentals, And Organizing For Collective Actions, Francisco Valdes

Seattle University Law Review

The information we gathered during 2021–2023 shows that critical faculty and other academic resources are present throughout most of U.S. legal academia. Counting only full-time faculty, our limited research identified 778 contacts in 200 schools equating to nearly four contacts on average per school. But no organized critical “core” had coalesced within legal academia or, more broadly, throughout higher education expressly dedicated to defending and advancing critical knowledge and its production up to now. And yet, as the 2021–2022 formation of the Critical (Legal) Collective (“CLC”) outlined below demonstrates, many academics sense or acknowledge the need for greater cohesion among …

Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky

University of Miami Law Review

This Article identifies and examines the Supreme Court’s longstanding unintelligibility with respect to recognition of a fundamental right to vote per se under the Constitution. In a host of equal protection cases, the Court’s refusal to “say what the law is” in this regard has produced a chaotic jurisprudence on the status of the right. Because ours is a constitutional schema consisting of multiple types of rights to vote, the refusal manifests as judicial reliance on and acclamation of some unspecified right to vote. It is refusal by lack of clarity. The unsorted right has led some scholars to conclude …

Citizen Enforcement Laws Threaten Democracy, David A. Carrillo, Stephen M. Duvernay

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

One Person, How Many Votes? Measuring Prison Malapportionment, Ian Bollag-Miller

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

“One-person, one-vote” is a fundamental principle of democracy. In practice, however, vote distribution among population groups is often less than equal. Even in established democracies, prison malapportionment—the distribution of legislative seats by counting incarcerated people in their prisons’ districts rather than their home districts—is one example of a practice that distorts voter representation. Prison malapportionment allows less populous districts that house prisons to maximize their voting power at the expense of more densely populated districts from which many incarcerated people previously lived. While there has been significant scholarship on the causes and effects of prison malapportionment, there is no standard …

Depoliticizing The Supreme Court Through Term Limits: A Worthwhile Reform Effort, Kara King

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

The United States Supreme Court is in a legitimacy crisis. Americans are losing faith in the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government. As a result, policymakers and academics have put forth several proposals to reform the Court. The concept of an eighteen-year term limit maintains some bipartisan support and stands out as the most likely reform. This Article argues that term limits could help depoliticize the nomination process, bring greater stability to the Court, and restore confidence in the Court.

Taking History Seriously: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Reflections On Progressive Lawyering, And Section 3 Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Andrew G. Celli Jr.

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

History has lessons to teach, and lawyers can learn from and use history in ways other than by cherry-picking from it. This Article contends that, while American history may be vexed, progressive lawyers can fully embrace history and hold it up into the light for consideration, all in service of progressive ends.

This Article describes a recent litigation that illustrates the point. In March 2022, the Author, together with other lawyers and a non-partisan pro-democracy group, represented voters from Georgia’s fourteenth congressional district in their effort to disqualify U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from the Georgia ballot—based upon Section 3 …

Increasing Voter Investment In American Democracy: Proposals For Reform, Adam Drake

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Millions of Americans choose to stay home every election cycle. Polling suggests that these nonvoters are either apathetic with respect to the democratic process or feel alienated from the United States government. Reforms to the democratic system should focus on alleviating these sentiments, ultimately encouraging more voters to show up to the polls. As turnout increases, so too does the legitimacy and stability of the U.S. government.

With that goal in mind, this Article advocates for a five- prong approach to reforming the electoral system. The first proposed step is to eliminate unnecessary barriers to voting by establishing federal automatic …

I Hope Tilden Was Right, Jerry H. Goldfeder

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Updating Anderson-Burdick To Evaluate Partisan Manipulation

Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

This Article analyzes jurisprudence concerning the judicial review of election laws. It suggests that the United States Supreme Court’s approach should acknowledge the realities of political partisanship when reviewing challenged laws and regulations. Specifically, this Article proposes a judicial test to evaluate election laws for partisan biases using factors modeled on those employed by the Court in Gingles v. Thornburg. Simply put, the manipulation of election laws to pursue partisan advantages poses the greatest threat to our democracy. Accordingly, this Article concludes that protecting our democracy from election practices that benefit one party over another in the guise of …

Innovoting: How Democracy Is Being Reshaped By Women's Innovative Voting Activism & Candidacy, Andrea Schneider, Kali Murray, Amber Wichowsky, Christina Wolbrecht, Mary Kelley, Kara Swanson

Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review

None

Toward A More Democratic America, Thomas Kleven

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Court-Packing In 2021: Pathways To Democratic Legitimacy, Richard Mailey

Seattle University Law Review

This Article asks whether the openness to court-packing expressed by a number of Democratic presidential candidates (e.g., Pete Buttigieg) is democratically defensible. More specifically, it asks whether it is possible to break the apparent link between demagogic populism and court-packing, and it examines three possible ways of doing this via Bruce Ackerman’s dualist theory of constitutional moments—a theory which offers the possibility of legitimating problematic pathways to constitutional change on democratic but non-populist grounds. In the end, the Article suggests that an Ackermanian perspective offers just one, extremely limited pathway to democratically legitimate court-packing in 2021: namely, where a Democratic …

The Unwritten Rules Of Liberal Democracy, Charles W. Collier

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This Article is set amidst the distinctly unsettled and unsettling state of governmental practices, legislative policy, and presidential politics of contemporary America. Immediacy, too, introduces its own uncertainty—as compared to the comfortable vantage point of the distant future. But, as I shall argue, there is no realistic alternative to beginning in medias res. To address these issues as they inherently demand, the usual precedents and protocols and precautions must be set aside—if they are not already “gone with the wind.”6 Since the 2016 Presidential Election, and even before, threats to liberal democracy have emerged, in plausible form, as never before …

A New Voting Rights Act For A New Century: How Liberalizing The Voting Rights Act’S Bailout Provisions Can Help Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2017, Mario Q. Fitzgerald

Brooklyn Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Shelby County. v. Holder in 2013. Members of Congress have attempted to renew the VRA with an updated coverage formula through the Voting Rights Advancement Acts of 2015 and of 2017. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have not supported either bill. Even if passed in its current form, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 (VRAA) for violating the principle of “equal sovereignty between the States” as set forth by the Court in Shelby County. Therefore, this note …

The Invalidation Of The Maine Congressional Term Limits Law: A Vindication Of Democracy, David A. Soley

Maine Law Review

On November 8, 1994, the voters of Maine enacted a term limits law that arbitrarily limited the democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice. The law provided that Maine's United States Representatives could not appear on the ballot after six consecutive years of service and that Maine's United States Senators could not appear on the election ballot after twelve consecutive years of service. On May 26, 1995, the United States District Court for the District of Maine found that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the Qualifications Clauses of the United States Constitution and permanently enjoined …

Unseen Exclusions In Voting And Immigration Law, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Shelby, Race, And Disability Rights, Ravi Malhotra

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Preferential Judicial Activism, Sudha Setty

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Frederick Douglass On Shelby County, Olympia Duhart

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Post Oppression, Christian B. Sundquist

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Legal Post-Racialism As An Instrument Of Racial Compromise In Shelby County V. Holder, Pantea Javidan

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Shelby County V. Holder: A Critical Analysis Of The Post-Racial Movement’S Relationship To Bystander Denial And Its Effect On Perceptions Of Ongoing Discrimination In Voting, Abra S. Mason

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Electoral Silver Linings After Shelby, Citizens United And Bennett, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Setting Congress Up To Fail, Margaret B. Kwoka

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Voting Game, Sarah R. Robinson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Second Reconstruction Is Over, Robert V. Ward Jr.

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Still Fighting After All These Years: Minority Voting Rights 50 Years After The March On Washington, Deborah N. Archer

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Any Is Too Much: Shelby County V. Holder And Diminished Citizenship, Peter Halewood

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Demography And Democracy, Phyllis Goldfarb

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.