Election Law @ Moritz

Commentary...

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.

Election Law @ Moritz Biweekly Update

Every Tuesday, Election Law @ Moritz sends out the "Biweekly Update." Included in this email is a link to the week's Biweekly Comment, links to any new features added to the web site since the previous Update, as well as any special messages from the director.

If you would like to sign up to receive the Biweekly Update, please email us at electionlaw@osu.edu. We do not sell or give our subscribers' email addresses to anyone.