Election Law @ Moritz

Commentary

Judicial Review of Electoral Mechanics After Crawford


Chris ElmendorfMay 6 (Chris Elmendorf)
Last December, I published an article that advanced two descriptive claims about nature of the Supreme Court’s Storer-Burdick (or “electoral mechanics”) jurisprudence. The first claim, which I thought perhaps so obviously true as to be uninteresting, was that in spite of the Court’s nominal rejection of “litmus paper tests” in favor of open-ended balancing in this area, the Court’s decisions actually manifest a strong preference for simple, formal threshold tests by which challenged requirements may be sorted into the twin categories of presumptively permissible and presumptively impermissible (and subjected to lax review or strict scrutiny accordingly). My second claim, which I thought more provocative, was that Burdick misleads where it indicates that that scrutiny levels are to vary with the severity of the burden on the plaintiff’s rights of political participation.

Read Comment | View Archives


Daniel P. Tokaji
Equal Vote is the nationally-acclaimed blog by Daniel P. Tokaji that focuses on election reform, the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act.

Key Questions for Key States

Key Question for Key StatesEL@M proudly presents Key Questions for Key States, an analysis of the election administration systems of 15 states that are likely to be important in determining the 2008 Presidential election. Our first installment of the project analyzes the systems of Pennsylvania and Indiana in time for the Presidential primaries of those states. The analysis is presented in report format, but, in addition, a series of interactive maps and charts will be added as the project develops more fully. Check back for further updates.

States