Law Commons^™

The Meaning, History, And Importance Of The Elections Clause, Eliza Sweren-Becker, Michael Waldman

Washington Law Review

Historically, the Supreme Court has offered scant attention to or analysis of the Elections Clause, resulting in similarly limited scholarship on the Clause’s original meaning and public understanding over time. The Clause directs states to make regulations for the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, and grants Congress superseding authority to make or alter those rules.

But the 2020 elections forced the Elections Clause into the spotlight, with Republican litigants relying on the Clause to ask the Supreme Court to limit which state actors can regulate federal elections. This new focus comes on the heels of the Clause serving …

Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.

Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a descriptive …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Joshua A. Douglas And Michael E. Solimine, Election Law Scholars, In Support Of Petitioners, Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine

Law Faculty Advocacy

Professor Joshua A. Douglas and Professor Michael E. Solimine are election law experts who have a particular interest in the procedural aspects of election litigation. Professors Douglas and Solimine are filing this brief because they have a keen interest in ensuring that the federal courts employ the proper procedure in election law cases, as doing so helps to resolve these disputes in a manner that best comports with the unique aspects of the electoral system. This brief explains why district courts should not use the pleading standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft …

(Mis)Trusting States To Run Election, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article critically examines recent Supreme Court election law jurisprudence, with a particular eye toward cases involving state election administration—a hotbed of litigation at the Court in recent years. Election administration entails the rules of operating an election and encompasses laws such as voter identification requirements, regulation of primaries, and other "nuts-and-bolts" aspects of the voting process. The Article focuses primarily on the last decade, mainly because that is when states have increasingly enacted stricter election regulations, supposedly in the name of "election integrity," but more likely to gain partisan advantage for the ruling party. In addition, during the first …

The Right To Vote Under State Constitutions, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is "fundamental," the "essence of a democratic society," and "preservative of all rights." But courts and scholars are still searching for a solution to the puzzle of how best to protect voting rights, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court has underenforced the right to vote. The answer, however, is right in front of us: state constitutions. Virtually every state constitution includes direct, explicit language granting the right to vote, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, which …

Election Law Pleading, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article explores how the Supreme Court’s recent pleading decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have impacted election litigation. It explains how Twombly and Iqbal’s “factual plausibility” standard usually does not help in an election case, because there is often little factual dispute regarding the operation of the election practice. Instead, the real question in a motion to dismiss is whether the plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action against the government defendant who is administering the election. But Twombly and Iqbal’s rule does not assist in answering this question. That is, Twombly and Iqbal are incongruent with …