Law Commons^™

The Electoral Count Mess: The Electoral Count Act Of 1887 Is Unconstitutional, And Other Fun Facts (Plus A Few Random Academic Speculations) About Counting Electoral Votes, Jack M. Beermann, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, and in light of the controversy that arose in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we explain the constitutional process for counting electoral votes. In short, every four years, the Twelfth Amendment requires the President of the Senate (usually the Vice President of the United States) to open certificates provided by state presidential electors and count the votes contained therein. The Constitution allows no role for Congress in this process, and thus the provisions of the Electoral Count Act purporting to grant Congress the power, by concurrent resolution, to reject a state's electoral votes are unconstitutional. …

More Than The Vote: 16-Year-Old Voting And The Risks Of Legal Adulthood, Katharine B. Silbaugh

Faculty Scholarship

Advocates of 16-year-old voting have not grappled with two significant risks to adolescents of their agenda. First, a right to vote entails a corresponding accessibility to campaigns. Campaign speech is highly protected, and 16-year-old voting invites more unfettered access to minors by commercial, government, and political interests than current law tolerates. Opening 16-year-olds to campaign access undermines a considered legal system of managing the potential exploitation of adolescents, which sometimes includes direct regulation of entities and also gives parents authority in both law and culture to prohibit, manage, or supervise contacts with every kind of person interested in communicating with …

Voting Matters, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

Elections have consequences—especially for civil rights, social justice, and human rights.

The year 2020 brings another round of elections for president, legislators, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, district attorneys, mayors, city council members, school committee members, and even judges. Our elected officials and their appointees decide who pays how much in taxes, what our taxes pay for, what kind of education our children get, what counts as a crime, what agricultural products are subsidized, what the minimum wage shall be, how to conduct the census, who is eligible for Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC benefits, who is admitted into the …

The Appearance And The Reality Of Quid Pro Quo Corruption: An Empirical Investigation, Christopher Robertson, D. Alex Winkelman, Kelly Bergstrand, Darren Modzelewski

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court says that campaign finance regulations are unconstitutional unless they target "quid pro quo" corruption or its appearance. To test those appearances, we fielded two studies. First, in a highly realistic simulation, three grand juries deliberated on charges that a campaign spender bribed a Congressperson. Second, 1271 representative online respondents considered whether to convict, with five variables manipulated randomly. In both studies, jurors found quid pro quo corruption for behaviors they believed to be common. This research suggests that Supreme Court decisions were wrongly decided and that Congress and the states have greater authority to regulate campaign finance. …

Note, Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required, Portia Pedro

Faculty Scholarship

For over one hundred years, the ballot initiative or proposition has been touted as a solution to some of the problems in the representative system of democracy in the United States. Depending on a state’s ballot initiative system, this mechanism enables citizens to make laws, to create or eliminate rights, or to amend the state’s constitution through a popular vote. Popular initiatives were initially intended to allow ordinary citizens to intervene in the democratic process when their representative officials were not carrying out their wishes. These proposition processes were supposed to create a space for public deliberation. By allowing the …