This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming argument in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. Our case preview is here. Richard L. Hasen is the chancellor’s professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and the founder of Election Law Blog.
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the jurisprudence of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Richard L. Hasen is the chancellor’s professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and the founder of Election Law Blog.
Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. When it comes to jurisprudence on voting rights, the Supreme Court stands at a crossroads.
Richard L. Hasen is a Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. He blogs at Election Law Blog. It is tempting to think of the plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott as conservatives.
It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case giving a small, and perhaps only temporary, victory for minority voters in a dispute over the redrawing of Alabama’s legislative districts after the 2010 census.
By the end of Wednesday’s oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, it was not clear whether the state of Alabama or challengers to its state redistricting plan would be likely to win the racial gerrymandering claim currently before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has long ignored Justice Felix Frankfurter’s warning to stay out of the political thicket. It regularly hears challenges to redistricting cases (not to mention lots of other types of election cases), raising issues from the one-person, one-vote rule to vote dilution under the Voting Rights Act, to racial and partisan gerrymandering claims.
Richard L. Hasen publishes Election Law Blog and is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine. Chief Justice Roberts has moved the Supreme Court’s election law jurisprudence steadily and stealthily in his preferred direction.
Richard L. Hasen publishes Election Law Blog and is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine.
Political polarization in Congress seems to be affecting the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, inadvertently strengthening the Court at the expense of Congress. These days – unlike in the past – Congress rarely overrides the Supreme Court’s statutory decisions.
Without doubt, the Supreme Court’s most prominent decision so far under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts has been Citizens United v. FEC.
The following contribution to our VRA symposium comes from Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown.