Election Law Commons^™

A Conversation On Learning From The History Of The Civil Rights Movement, Walter F. Mondale

Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality

Introduction & Abridged Transcript, The Summit for Civil Rights, November 10, 2017

When At Loggerheads With Customary International Law: The Right To Run For Public Office And The Right To Vote, Thompson Chengeta

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Many populist demagogues in America and Europe have spoken; and continue to speak; against human rights in their campaigns for political office. This article discusses the factors that have contributed to the current wave of populism; and the nature of the challenges that are presented by populism to democracy; human rights; and constitutionalism from an international human rights law perspective. It also focuses on President Donald Trump; who was voted President of the United States; even after he clearly and publicly indicated his support for torture and his intentions to approve it in the United States. To that end; the …

Raila Amolo Odinga And Another V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission And Others Presidential Petition No. 1 Of 2017, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Black And White Make Gray: Common Cause V. Kemp, What's The Trigger For Purging Voters?, Caitlin Wise

Mercer Law Review

Imagine showing up to the voting poll, eager to vote and to show support for a candidate, and waiting in a long line, possibly in the cold. Then imagine handing your identification over only to be told you were not on the voter registration roll. This is what happened to 100,000 voters in the 2016 presidential primary election when they were purged from the voter registration rolls. Because of the voter purging, they were unable to cast their vote in a controversial and close election. ABC News reported many voters who were removed from voting registration rolls were from low-income …

The Gerrymander And The Constitution: Two Avenues Of Analysis And The Quest For A Durable Precedent, Edward B. Foley

William & Mary Law Review

It has been notoriously difficult for the United States Supreme Court to develop a judicially manageable—and publicly comprehensible—standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, a standard comparable in this respect to the extraordinarily successful “one person, one vote” principle articulated in the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. This difficulty persists because the quest has been for a gerrymandering standard that is universalistic in the same way that “one person, one vote” is: derived from abstract ideas of political theory, like the equal right of citizens to participate in electoral politics. But other domains of constitutional law employ particularistic modes of reasoning …

Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Election Law “Federalism” And The Limits Of The Antidiscrimination Framework, Franita Tolson

William & Mary Law Review

If the United States Supreme Court conceived of the right to vote as an active entitlement that safeguards other fundamental rights rather than as a passive privilege that permits courts to prioritize state sovereignty over broad enfranchisement, then many of the errors that have become commonplace in our system of elections would not occur. It is unlikely, however, that the Court will take the steps necessary to extend the constitutional protections afforded to the right to vote. In recent years, the Court has sharply circumscribed Congress’s ability to protect the right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, rejecting …

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 …

Prophylactic Redistricting? Congress's Section 5 Power And The New Equal Protection Right To Vote, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, And The Inherent Unfairness To The “Un-United” American Citizen, Christopher J. Kantor

Writing Across the Curriculum

Among contemporary United States Supreme Court rulings that have impacted the structure of our nation, the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission resulted in significant political campaign finance reform that gave rise to an election system influenced by money, corporations, and powerful individuals. The ruling of Citizens United allows for the unlimited spending of corporations and labor unions on political expenditures and the limited disclosures of these campaign donors. This overturned precedent established in the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the 2003 case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the respective rulings of which …

Section 2 After Section 5: Voting Rights And The Race To The Bottom, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Five years ago, Shelby County v. Holder released nine states and fifty-five smaller jurisdictions from the preclearance obligation set forth in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This obligation mandated that places with a history of discrimination in voting obtain federal approval—known as preclearance—before changing any electoral rule or procedure. Within hours of the Shelby County decision, jurisdictions began moving to reenact measures section 5 had specifically blocked. Others pressed forward with new rules that the VRA would have barred prior to Shelby County.

Accountability Claims In Constitutional Law, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos

Northwestern University Law Review

Several of the Supreme Court’s most controversial constitutional doctrines hinge on claims about electoral accountability. Restrictions on the President’s power to remove agency heads are disfavored because they reduce the President’s accountability for agency actions. Congress cannot delegate certain decisions to agencies because then Congress is less accountable for those choices. State governments cannot be federally commandeered because such conscription lessens their accountability. And campaign spending must be unregulated so that more information reaches voters and helps them to reward or punish incumbents for their performances.

There is just one problem with these claims. They are wrong—at least for the …

Taking The States' Congressional Delegations Seriously: A Twelfth Amendment And First Amendment Approach To Identifying The Worst Gerrymanders, Jamin B. Raskin

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Lies, Line Drawing, And (Deep) Fake News, Marc Jonathan Blitz

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legislating Against Lying In Campaigns And Elections, Joshua S. Sellers

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Receive Foreign Speech, Joseph Thai

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Changing Governance Models By Applying Blockchain Computing, Steve Young

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Undue Burdens And Potential Opportunities In Voting Rights And Abortion Law, Pamela S. Karlan

Indiana Law Journal

One of the problems with the way we have tried to build a more just constitutional law is our failure to see, and then to make the most of, doctrinal connections across constitutional subfields—that is, to build constitutional bridges. This Essay seeks to build one such bridge between two areas of legal doctrine that might seem relatively disconnected from one another: voting rights and reproductive justice.

Many years ago, I joked about one aspect of that connection: “Redistricting, like reproduction, combines lofty goals, deep passions about identity and instincts for self-preservation, increasing reliance on technology, and often a need to …

Editor’S Introduction, Mitchell B. Bryant

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

False Speech And The First Amendment, Erwin Chemerinsky

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Introductory Essay: Old Principles For An (Allegedly) Brave New World, Harry F. Tepker

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Truth, Courage, And Other Human Dispositions: Reflections On Falsehoods And The First Amendment, Jonathan D. Varat

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

(At Least) Thirteen Ways Of Looking At Election Lies, Helen Norton

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech And Domain Allocation: A Suggested Framework For Analyzing The Constitutionality Of Prohibition Of Lies, James Weinstein

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forward Into The Past: Speech Intermediaries In The Television And Internet Ages, Gregory P. Magarian

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporations As Conduits: A Cautionary Note About Regulating Hypotheticals, Douglas M. Spencer

Publications

No abstract provided.

Did The African-American Electorate Unintentionally Help Elect Donald Trump President?, C. Daniel Chill

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race And Representation Revisited: The New Racial Gerrymandering Cases And Section 2 Of The Vra, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford. It advances two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court's skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that account and argues that the Court's reluctance to intervene is a function of the Court's institutional calculus that it ought to protect its legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent partisan …