Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law and Politics
Politicians As Fiduciaries: Public Law V. Private Law When Altering The Date Of An Election, Steven J. Cleveland
Politicians As Fiduciaries: Public Law V. Private Law When Altering The Date Of An Election, Steven J. Cleveland
Washington and Lee Law Review
In the 2019 decision Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that federal challenges to partisan gerrymandering—a practice yielding election results that “reasonably seem unjust”—were non-justiciable. If partisan gerrymandering claims are not federally justiciable, and if that conclusion emboldens politicians, how else might incumbents manipulate election mechanics to preserve their political advantage? This Article explores one possibility that was briefly mentioned by the Rucho majority: the strategic advancement or delay of the date of a federal election. The strategic shift of election day is not simply a theoretical problem. Foreign politicians have strategically altered their election days …
Standing At A Constitutional Divide: Redefining State And Federal Requirements For Initiatives After Hollingsworth V. Perry, Scott L. Kafker, David A. Russcol
Standing At A Constitutional Divide: Redefining State And Federal Requirements For Initiatives After Hollingsworth V. Perry, Scott L. Kafker, David A. Russcol
Washington and Lee Law Review
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court denied standing to proponents of the California initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage, who wished to appeal a federal district court judge’s decision declaring the initiative unconstitutional. As suggested by the dissent, Hollingsworth has severe consequences for the twenty-four states in which the people can bypass elected officials and legislate directly through the initiative. The Supreme Court has established a clear constitutional divide between state and federal standing requirements for initiatives. Whereas states provide generous standing to proponents so officials do not exclusively control the defense of the people’s initiative process, the Supreme Court …
Bias Arbitrage, Amitai Aviram
Bias Arbitrage, Amitai Aviram
Washington and Lee Law Review
The production of law-including the choice of a law's subject matter, the timing of its enactment and the manner in which it is publicized and perceived by the public-is significantly driven by an extra-legal market in which politicians and private parties compete over the opportunity to engage in bias arbitrage. Bias arbitrage is the extraction of private benefits through actions that identify and mitigate discrepancies between actual risks and the public's perception of the same risks. Politicians arbitrage these discrepancies by enacting laws that address the misperceived risk and contain a "placebo effect"--a counter-bias that attempts to offset the pre-existing …