Expert Commentary


Go to Commentary Archives

Featured Commentary


tokaji.1

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President? Let’s Find Out

Daniel P. Tokaji - Posted on February 17, 2016, 8:00 am

Donald Trump has revived the question whether Senator Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President due to his birth in Canada. The issue cries out for judicial resolution, but there are constitutional and prudential obstacles to a federal court deciding it.  This comment argues that the most promising avenue  is a state court lawsuit challenging Senator Cruz’s eligibility and seeking his removal from the primary ballot. There’s at least one state – Pennsylvania – where the deadline for filing hasn’t yet expired, but if skeptics of Cruz’s eligibility want to sue there they must act quickly, no later than Tuesday. Litigating the case through state court would tee up the issue for Supreme Court review, which would be helpful in resolving the recurrent question of what it means to be a “natural born Citizen."

Publication of new BALLOT BATTLES book

Edward B. Foley - Posted on December 21, 2015, 10:01 pm

I'm delighted that Oxford University Press has published my new book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States. I've collected links to last week's blogging related to the book's release. 

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley - Posted on June 29, 2015, 2:32 pm

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

Tokaji's Testimony re Ohio's Initiated Constitutional Amendment Process

Daniel P. Tokaji - Posted on June 23, 2015, 2:28 pm

The following written testimony was submitted to the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee for a June 23, 2015, hearing on the proposed amendment to Ohio's initiated constitutional amendment process. I sympathize with the goals of Sub. H.J.R. 4 but, for the reasons stated more fully below, oppose the proposal in its present form. Its vague and ambiguous language is an invitation to judicial lawmaking and would do more harm than good if adopted.

NC Supreme Court Recount Could Be Legal Focal Point

Edward B. Foley - Posted on November 5, 2014, 8:21 am

One to watch very closely.


Disclaimer

Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.