Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2322765
 


 



Voting Rules and Constitutional Law


Edward B. Foley


Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

September 9, 2013

George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 223

Abstract:     
Anyone concerned that Bush v. Gore may have been unprincipled or at least insufficiently precise in its reasoning should have the same concern about the leading voting law case emanating from the 2012 presidential election, Obama for America v. Husted. That case is just as fact-specific in its holding as Bush v. Gore was. Moreover, both cases are signs of a pervasive problem in contemporary election law: the judicial evaluation of electoral rules under the prevailing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is woefully indeterminate, as also revealed in the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Indiana’s voter identification case (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). When one attempts to put Crawford together with Bush v. Gore, as the lower courts attempted to do in Obama for America v. Husted and other voting related litigation in 2012, one is at a loss as to the specificity of the standard to apply to the facts of the pending case. This indeterminacy is especially problematic in election cases because it tempts judges to decide these politically fraught cases according to their own partisan preferences, rather than according to objectively discernible principles.

An alternative approach would be to have federal judges focus explicitly on the problem of partisanship. The new test of a voting procedure’s constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment would be whether it was imposed as an effort to tilt the electoral playing field in favor of a particular political party. One advantage of this new test is that it would substitute a relatively straightforward single inquiry — did the relevant arm of state government engage in improper partisan manipulation of the electoral process? — for the currently incommensurate balancing of electoral burdens and administrative benefits. Another advantage of this new test would be that, by making federal judges more consciously (and, in their opinions, expressly) attuned to the risks of improper partisanship, it would increase the likelihood that federal judges would do a better job at policing their own temptations towards partisan rulings in high-stakes election cases.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 30

Keywords: Bush, Gore, Obama, Husted, Equal Protection, Early Voting, Crawford, Anderson, Burdick, balancing, indeterminacy, partisanship

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 9, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Foley, Edward B., Voting Rules and Constitutional Law (September 9, 2013). George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 223. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2322765 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2322765

Contact Information

Edward B. Foley (Contact Author)
Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law ( email )
55 West 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
United States
614-292-4288 (Phone)
614-292-2035 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 409
Downloads: 106
Download Rank: 149,235

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.266 seconds