Election Law Commons^™

Money Matters But It Doesn’T Decide: The Case Of Michael Bloomberg’S Presidential Campaign, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Michael Bloomberg spent nearly a billion dollars in personal wealth on an unsuccessful bid for the US presidency. While personal spending is not limited by campaign finance laws, self-funded candidates often find it difficult to win elections.

Election 2020 Sees Record $11 Billion In Campaign Spending, Mostly From A Handful Of Super-Rich Donors, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Total spending in the 2020 federal elections is projected to set a new record of almost US$11 billion by November.

When adjusted for inflation, that’s over 50% higher than 2016 election spending. This year’s federal election spending – for the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives – is on track to be double what it was in 2008.

The surge in campaign spending is striking. But my research on campaign finance regulation suggests the volume of election spending is not the main problem with the U.S. campaign finance system.

The real challenge for American democracy is where this …

Congress Must Count The Votes: The Danger Of Not Including A State's Electoral College Votes During A Disputed Presidential Election, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Imagine this (nightmare) scenario: In the November 2020 election,

one party wins control of both Houses of Congress, and the presidency comes

down to a disputed election in a state that typically leans toward the other party.

Let's say that Republicans take back a majority of the House of Representatives,

retain control of the Senate, and the presidency will depend on a swing state like

Pennsylvania-a state that voted for the Democratic nominee from 1992

through 2012 but the Republican nominee in 2016. Assume also that Congress,

now fully under Republican control, receives two competing slates of electoral

college votes …

Electoral College: Supreme Court Decides That States May Replace Or Punish Presidential Electors Who Do Not Vote For The Candidate Who Won The Most Votes In The State, But Leaves Several Questions Unanswered, Alan Raphael

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Are Presidential Electors Free To Vote As They Wish, Despite A State’S Popular Vote?, Alan Raphael, Elliott Mondry

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Law Library Blog (January 2020): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Corporate Control, Dual Class, And The Limits Of Judicial Review, Zohar Goshen, Assaf Hamdani

Faculty Scholarship

Companies with a dual-class structure have increasingly been involved in high-profile battles over the reallocation of control rights. Google, for instance, sought to entrench its founders’ control by recapital­izing from a dual-class into a triple-class structure. The CBS board, in contrast, attempted to dilute its controlling shareholder by distributing a voting stock dividend that would empower minority shareholders to block a merger it perceived to be harmful. These cases raise a fundamental question at the heart of corporate law: What is the proper judicial response to self-dealing claims regarding reallocations of corporate control rights?

This Article shows that the reallocation …

Politicians As Fiduciaries: Public Law V. Private Law When Altering The Date Of An Election, Steven Cleveland

Faculty Articles

In the 2019 decision Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that federal challenges to partisan gerrymandering-a practice yielding election results that "reasonably seem unjust"-were non-justiciable. If partisan gerrymandering claims are not federally justiciable, and if that conclusion emboldens politicians, how else might incumbents manipulate election mechanics to preserve their political advantage? This Article explores one possibility that was briefly mentioned by the Rucho majority: the strategic advancement or delay of the date of a federal election. The strategic shift of election day is not simply a theoretical problem. Foreign politicians have strategically altered their election days for …

Foreword, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

In November 2019, the Western New England Law Review held its symposium, On Account of Sex: Women’s Suffrage and the Role of Gender in Politics Today. The symposium articles ask us to look at history to see what factors enabled path-breaking activists to secure the right to vote in a time of immense national turmoil. They also ask us to weigh how history should assess the strategic decisions that ultimately gained political rights for some women, but deliberately excluded Black women and other activists.

These historical accounts help us consider how the right to vote is faring, particularly after …

Reconstructing Racially Polarized Voting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

Racially polarized voting makes minorities more vulnerable to discriminatory changes in election laws and therefore implicates nearly every voting rights doctrine. In Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court held that racially polarized voting is a necessary—but not a sufficient—condition for a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court, however, has recently questioned the propriety of recognizing the existence of racially polarized voting. This colorblind approach threatens not only the Gingles factors but also Section 2’s constitutionality.

The Court treats racially polarized voting as a modern phenomenon. But the relevant starting point is the 1860s, …

The Superfluous Fifteenth Amendment?, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article starts a conversation about reorienting voting rights doctrine toward the Fifteenth Amendment. In advancing this claim, I explore an unappreciated debate—the “Article V debate”—in the Fortieth Congress about whether nationwide black suffrage could and should be achieved through a statute, a constitutional amendment, or both. As the first significant post-ratification discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Article V debate provides valuable insights about the original public understandings of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the distinction between civil and political rights.

The Article V debate reveals that the Radical Republicans’ initial proposal for nationwide black suffrage included both …

Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden

Faculty Articles

This Article explores the growing divide between the Roberts Court’s treatment of the free speech rights of wealthy individuals and corporations in campaign finance cases as compared to its treatment of the rights of public-sector labor unions and their members. First, it highlights some internal contradictions in the Janus Court’s analysis. Then, it discusses the growing—yet mostly ignored—divergence in the Court’s treatment of corporate and labor speakers with respect to the use of market influence to achieve political influence.The Article has two Parts. In Part I, I explain how the Court reached its decision in Janus before critiquing the decision’s …

First Amendment (Un)Exceptionalism: A Comparative Taxonomy Of Campaign Finance Reform Proposals In The United States And United Kingdom, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

There is an urgent conversation happening among the world’s democracies about how to respond to the combined threat of online electioneering and foreign interference in domestic elections. Despite the shadow such activities cast over the 2016 presidential election in the United States, the US has been largely absent from comparative discussions about how to tackle the problem. This is not just because of a recalcitrant president. The assumption that America’s “First Amendment Exceptionalism” – the idea that American freedom of expression law is simply too much of an outlier to warrant useful comparative consideration – is strong on both sides …

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 …

The Political Process Of Preemption, Paul A. Diller

University of Richmond Law Review

Preemption, particularly of the state-city variety, has become a hot topic. State legislatures in many states over the last decade have preempted a wide swath of areas in which cities and counties were previously free to govern. In addition to the sweeping nature and frequency of preemption, the increasingly aggressive methods of enforcing preemption have drawn notice. The threat of fiscal penalties, removal of local officials from office, and even criminal sanctions constitute what one scholar has dubbed the phenomenon of “hyper preemption.”

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other: Naacp V. Alabama Is Not A Manual For Powerful, Wealthy Spenders To Pour Unlimited Secret Money Into Our Political Process, Erin Chlopak

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

James Madison, Citizens United, And The Constitutional Problem Of Corruption, Anthony J. Gaughan

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Participation, Expressive Association, And Judicial Review, Joshua S. Sellers

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chiafalo: Constitutionalizing Historical Gloss In Law And Democratic Politics, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel Charles

Articles by Maurer Faculty

We make one central point in this Article. Justice Kagan’s opinion in Chiafalo uses historical gloss to entrench a particular and modern view of political participation—which is best reflected by American political practices— by rejecting an alternative and anachronistic view—which is best reflected by the text and structure of the Constitution. Part I argues that Chiafalo is not a textualist opinion because Article II, Section 1 does not support the majority’s conclusion that states have the power to limit elector discretion. The majority’s reasoning to the contrary is not persuasive, even on its own terms. Part II argues that Chiafalo …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.