Election Law Commons^™

Reapportionment, Nonapportionment, And Recovering Some Lost History Of One Person, One Vote, Pamela S. Karlan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Surveillance Gap: The Harms Of Extreme Privacy And Data Marginalization, Michele Gilman, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

We live in an age of unprecedented surveillance, enhanced by modern technology, prompting some to suggest that privacy is dead. Previous scholarship suggests that no subset of the population feels this phenomenon more than marginalized communities. Those who rely on public benefits, for example, must turn over personal information and submit to government surveillance far more routinely than wealthier citizens who enjoy greater opportunity to protect their privacy and the ready funds to secure it. This article illuminates the other end of the spectrum, arguing that many individuals who may value government and nonprofit services and legal protections fail to …

The 2016 Voting Wars: From Bad To Worse, Richard L. Hasen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Incarcerated And Unrepresented: Prison-Based Gerrymandering And Why Evenwel’S Approval Of “Total Population” As A Population Base Shouldn’T Include Incarcerated Populations, Emily J. Heltzel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Last Frontier Of Disenfranchisement: A Fundamental Right For Individuals With Cognitive Disabilities, Hillary May

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 6: Election Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

But First, (Don’T) Let Me Take A Selfie: New Hampshire’S Ban On Ballot Selfies And First Amendment Scrutiny, Emily Wagman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Immigration Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: The Court And The 2016 Election, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Arbitrating Ballot Battles, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Clearing The Political Thicket: Why Political Gerrymandering For Partisan Advantage Is Unconstitutional, Michael Parsons

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Court’s campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.

As a normative matter, it argues that following …

Parting The Dark Money Sea: Exposing Politically Active Tax-Exempt Groups Through Fec-Irs Hybrid Enforcement, Carrie E. Miller

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act, Questions Of Deference & Legislative Facts In A Digital Age, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

AALS Constitutional Law Panel (January 5, 2015)

Do Laws Have A Constitutional Shelf Life?, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

Times change. A statute passed today may seem obsolete tomorrow. Does the Constitution dictate when a law effectively expires? In Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision that invalidated a provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court seems to answer that question in the affirmative. Although rational and constitutional when written, the Court held that the coverage formula of the law grew to be irrational over time and was unconstitutional now because it bears “no logical relation to the present day.” This reason for invalidating a law is puzzling. The question answered in Shelby County was not about whether …

Section 3: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Transparency Rules In U.S. Elections Need Updating To Reflect 21st Century Realities, Rebecca Green

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Transparency In U.S. Elections, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

Bush v. Gore catapulted this country into a crisis of confidence in the management of our elections. Despite reforms since 2000, public confidence in election administration continues to wane. Are dead people on the rolls? Are noncitizens voting? Are provisional ballots wrongly rejected? State election transparency statutes meant to reassure the public that elections are producing legitimate results are often conflicting, vague, and even nonexistent. Exacerbating the problem, the last two decades have witnessed huge changes that offset the transparency balance. Dramatic changes in how Americans vote, how elections are administered, and who scrutinizes the election process call for a …

Unstable Footing: Shelby County’S Misapplication Of The Equal Footing Doctrine, Austin Graham

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Stop This Insanity, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners, V. Federal Election Commission, Respondent: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Dan Backer

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Election Evidence: The Promises And Realities Of California's Citizen Commission, Brett Piersma

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Stop This Insanity, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, V. Federal Election Commission, Appellee: Reply Brief Of Appellants, Dan Backer, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Election Delays In 2012, Rebecca Green, Emily Lippolis, Shanna Reulbach, Andrew Mccoy

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Stop This Insanity, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, V. Federal Election Commission, Appellee: Brief Of Appellants, Dan Backer, Patricia E. Roberts, Jessica L. Delaney, Bryan U. Gividen, Tillman J. Breckenridge

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

How Young Should Voters Be?: 16-Year-Olds’ Entitlement To The Most Basic Civil Right [Part V], Vivian E. Hamilton

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Just How Young Should Voters Be? Part Iv: Assessing Adolescents’ Electoral Competence, Vivian E. Hamilton

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Just How Youthful Should Voters Be? Part Iii: Why We Need A Conception Of Electoral Competence, And Its Implications For Adults With Cognitive Impairments, Vivian E. Hamilton

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Just How Youthful Should Voters Be? Part Ii: Defining Electoral Decision-Making Competence, Vivian E. Hamilton

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Youth Vote Matters. But Just How Young Should Voters Be? [Part I], Vivian E. Hamilton

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Resolving Election Error: The Dynamic Assessment Of Materiality, Justin Levitt

William & Mary Law Review

The ghosts of the 2000 presidential election will return in 2012. Photo-finish and error-laden elections recur in each cycle. When the margin of error exceeds the margin of victory, officials and courts must decide which, if any, errors to discount or excuse, knowing that the answer will likely determine the election’s winner. Yet despite widespread agreement on the likelihood of another national meltdown, neither courts nor scholars have developed consistent principles for resolving the errors that cause the chaos.

This Article advances such a principle, reflecting the underlying values of the electoral process. It argues that the resolution of an …