Election Law Commons^™

Restoring Public Trust In Elections: An Empirical Study Of How Campaign Finance Reform Can Restore Public Trust In Elections, Matthew Dale Kim

UF Law Faculty Publications

The American public has become deeply distrustful of elections. This distrust is partly due to Supreme Court decisions curtailing campaign finance restrictions, on First Amendment grounds, to spending that creates an appearance of quid pro quo corruption. The Court’s reasoning assumes that, although the government has an interest in protecting the public’s trust in elections, campaign spending does not pose a threat to the public’s trust absent the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. However, it is unclear if campaign spending undermines the public’s trust in elections through means other than the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. If it …

The Surprising Survival – So Far – Of The Corporate Contribution Ban, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court invalidated the longstanding ban on the expenditure of corporate funds in federal election campaigns. In so doing, the Court dismissed outright an argument that had long been the foundation for the restriction of corporate money in election campaigns — that, due to the “substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form[,]” corporate money poses a distinct threat to the integrity of democracy. Instead, viewing corporations as essentially “associations of citizens,” Citizens United determined that “the First Amendment does not permit Congress to …

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. …

Derailing Democracy, Shrinking Responsibility: The New Election Law Landscape, Cory Conley, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

In democracy jurisprudence, the Roberts Court wears two faces. Its most recent duo of cases illustrates the inconsistency. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that even grossly partisan gerrymanders are nonjusticiable in federal courts. Yet, in Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected granting unreviewable authority to state lawmakers to regulate federal elections—for now. This combination of rulings is not ideological moderation or judicial restraint, as the Court claims. These recent cases are emblematic of broader unpredictability and selectivity in election law. The assertions of judicial humility in Rucho stand in stark contrast to the bald activism …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Protecting Minority Representation In An Era Of Political Polarization And The Hollowing Out Of Voting Rights Protections, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court has hollowed out various voting rights protections, leaving all voters—minority and nonminority—less protected in a politically polarized America. Surprisingly, the Court has continued to protect representation for minority race voters who live in racially polarized areas. However, minority race voters risk losing that protection, typically provided through majority-minority districts authorized under the Voting Rights Act, if they build cross-racial coalitions with their neighbors. Under the Court’s interpretation of the VRA, cross-racial voting coalitions may be less protected than local majorities comprised of a single race of voters. The loss of such protection could leave their …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky

University of Miami Law Review

This Article identifies and examines the Supreme Court’s longstanding unintelligibility with respect to recognition of a fundamental right to vote per se under the Constitution. In a host of equal protection cases, the Court’s refusal to “say what the law is” in this regard has produced a chaotic jurisprudence on the status of the right. Because ours is a constitutional schema consisting of multiple types of rights to vote, the refusal manifests as judicial reliance on and acclamation of some unspecified right to vote. It is refusal by lack of clarity. The unsorted right has led some scholars to conclude …

Voter Due Process And The "Independent" State Legislature, Michael P. Bellis

Northwestern University Law Review

In a series of opinions surrounding the 2020 presidential election, multiple U.S. Supreme Court Justices broke from precedent to signal support of the “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT), a formerly obscure interpretation of state legislatures’ power over the administration of federal elections. Proponents of the ISLT allege that the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures plenary power in federal election contexts—including the power to discount ballots, redraw legislative maps, or appoint alternative slates of presidential electors. Although the Court denied certiorari in each case, across the denials four current Justices dissented because they considered the ISLT to be a proper interpretation …

The Roberts Court’S Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence And The Reemergence Of State Authoritarian Enclaves, Reginald Oh

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.

Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, …

Making It Harder To Challenge Election Districting, Erwin Chemerinsky

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

A New Supreme Court Case Threatens Another Body Blow To Our Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Carolyn Shapiro

Online Publications

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority insisted they were merely returning the issue of abortion to the democratic process. But a case the court has announced it will hear in its October term could make that democratic process a lot less democratic.

Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the numerous election law cases that the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts decided in the lead up to the 2020 election. The picture is bleak. Instead of protecting the constitutional right to vote, the Supreme Court and lower federal appeals courts unduly deferred to state legislatures in how to run the election, with little concern for the difficulties voters faced during a pandemic. If the courts do not alter their jurisprudence, then the only solution may be robust federal legislation or a constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to vote …

Mencari Jejak Konsep Judicial Restraint Dalam Praktik Kekuasaan Kehakiman Di Indonesia, Dian Agung Wicaksono, Andi Sandi Antonius Tabusassa Tonralipu

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The decision on judicial review of Laws by the Constitutional Court was allegedly not fully obeyed by the parties affected by the decision. One form of disobedience tothe judicial review decision by the Constitutional Courtwas shown by the Supreme Court concerning the decision related to the opening of the opportunity to submit a Peninjauan Kembali more than once, which was responded by the Supreme Court with internalregulations which emphasized that Peninjauan Kembali could only be done once.From the phenomenon, this research tries to trace the concept of judicial restraint in the practice of judicial power in Indonesia, as well as …

Trump V. Mazars Usa, Llp: The Case Of The Chief Justice And The Congressional Subpoenas, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Consent Of The Governed, Carter A. Hanson

Student Publications

The Consent of the Governed is a Kolbe Fellowship project investigating gerrymandering through the lens of mathematics, Supreme Court litigation, and the potential for redistricting reform. It was produced as a five-episode podcast during the summer of 2020; this paper is the transcription of the podcast script. The project begins with an analysis of the impact of gerrymandering on the composition of the current U.S. House of Representatives. It then investigates the arguments and stories of Supreme Court gerrymandering cases in the past twenty years within their political contexts, with a focus on the Court's reaction to different mathematical methods …

Brnovich V. Dnc: Election Litigation Migrates From Federal Courts To The Political Process, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

We are in a time of public skepticism over elections. The losing side doubts the fairness of the outcome, attributing the loss to suppression, fraud, foreign influence, or late-breaking changes to laws—some “true reason” outside the legitimate political process why a preferred candidate failed. The winning side is a sour contest or a sore loser away from doubting the legitimacy of the election.

It’s hard to tell whether the sharp rise in litigation over elections is the cause or the effect. Major political parties are spending more money than ever on lawyers and litigation in federal elections, from $7.5 million …

Gobbledygook: Political Questions, Manageability, & Partisan Gerrymandering, Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In finding that extreme partisan gerrymandering is a non-justiciable political question in Rucho v. Common Cause , the Supreme Court fixated upon the lack of judicially manageable standards to evaluate their constitutionality. The decision culminated in the Court's recent reinforcement of that manageability focus in partisan gerrymandering cases, with Chief Justice Roberts even calling efforts to numerically calculate the extremity of such gerrymandering "sociological gobbledygook." Such belabored fears about manageability misread the questions in the political question doctrine. The doctrine requires the Justices to initially ask, as a normative matter, whether the judiciary should resolve the controversy in our constitutional …

Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan

Cleveland State Law Review

In the 2018 case of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the procedures that Ohio election authorities used to purge ineligible voters from the state’s registration lists. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that the Ohio law complied with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). This Article contends that the controlling federal law—the NVRA and HAVA—gave the Supreme Court little choice but to decide the case in favor of Ohio’s secretary of state. But this article also argues …

Republicans And The Voting Rights Act, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Let All Voters Vote: Independents And The Expansion Of Voting Rights In The United States, Jeremy Gruber, Michael A. Hardy, Harry Kresky

Touro Law Review

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 …

Navigating The Post-Shelby Landscape: Using Universalism To Augment The Remaining Power Of The Voting Rights Act, Jesús N. Joslin

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Contingent Constitutionality, Legislative Facts, And Campaign Finance Law, Michael T. Morley

Florida State University Law Review

Many of the Supreme Court’s important holdings concerning campaign finance law are not pure matters of constitutional interpretation. Rather, they are “contingent” constitutional determinations: the Court’s conclusions rest in substantial part on legislative facts about the world that the Court finds, intuits, or assumes to be true. While earlier commentators have recognized the need to improve legislative factfinding by the Supreme Court, other aspects of its treatment of legislative facts—particularly in the realm of campaign finance—require reform as well.

Stare decisis purportedly insulates the Court’s purely legal holdings and interpretations from future challenge. Factually contingent constitutional rulings should, in contrast, …

Politics At Work After Citizens United, Ruben J. Garcia

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

There are seismic changes going on in the political system. The United States Supreme Court has constitutionalized the concentration of political power in the “one percent” in several recent decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC. At the same time, unions are representing a shrinking share of the workforce, and their political power is also being diminished. In order for unions to recalibrate the balance of political power at all, they must collaborate with grassroots community groups, as they have done in several recent campaigns. There are, however, various legal structures that make coordination between unions and nonunion groups difficult, …

Who Should Be Afforded More Protection In Voting – The People Or The States? The States, According To The Supreme Court In Shelby County V. Holder, Tara M. Darling

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transformation: Turning Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Into Something It Is Not, J. Christian Adams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.