Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Campaign finance (2)
- Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Contactless (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
-
- Dark money (1)
- DePaul Law Review (1)
- Elections (1)
- Electoral (1)
- Essential goods (1)
- Federal Election Commission (FEC) (1)
- Health crisis (1)
- Judicial campaign (1)
- Judicial election (1)
- Law (1)
- Legal practice and procedure (1)
- Lock down (1)
- Main-in ballot (1)
- Millionaires Amendment (1)
- Money (1)
- No contact (1)
- Novel corona virus (1)
- Pandemic (1)
- Party expenditure (1)
- Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases (1)
- Private contributions (1)
- Public funding (1)
- Public health (1)
- Public health threat (1)
- Public threat (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Covid-19 And The Law: Elections, Richard Briffault
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, …
The Supreme Court, Judicial Elections, And Dark Money, Richard Briffault
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 …
Can Congress Authorize The Opponents Of Self-Financed Candidates To Receive Extra-Large Contributions?, Richard Briffault
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.