Category Archives: election law and constitutional law

Political questions and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

election administration, election law and constitutional law

I went back to look at some of the commentary around the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. The decision shut the door on federal constitutional challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Much of the commentary around the decision at the time, unsurprisingly, focused on partisan gerrymandering, including alternative means of challenging gerrymanders (in state court or by ballot initiative, among other things), along with some reflection on the path from Davis v. Bandemer to Rucho.

There wasn’t a whole lot of discussion of the particular means the Court used, the political question doctrine. Yes, there was criticism about the Court angsting that it needed to keep itself out of the partisan political process. But not much on how the Court got there.

More than four years after Rucho, however, it appears that how Rucho got to the political question doctrine may be quite significant–and its influence continues to grow, as recent challenges to Donald Trump’s candidacy under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrate.

Continue reading Political questions and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment →
Share this:

A few more quick thoughts on Moore

Bush v. Gore reflections, election law and constitutional law, Elections Clause, legislation and legislatures, redistricting, Uncategorized

Moore v. Harper, much like Allen v. Milligan, was a shocker for me. Given how the posture of the case had changed, I didn’t expect the justices to reach the merits. I’m glad they did. A few thoughts:

1) In some ways, Moore v. Harper reads as a reaffirmation of the concept of judicial review, closing the loop on this idea that the Elections Clause is an exception to this principle that insulates state legislative action over federal elections from review in federal court and, until this case, possibly state court. While state courts are differently positioned than their federal counterparts, I had underestimated how much the Supreme Court might view this case as a threat to the concept of judicial review, more generally.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable political questions that would not be heard in federal court. But the Court also explicitly rejected the idea that claims brought under the Elections Clause, unlike those brought pursuant to the Guarantee Clause, were judicially unreviewable. These two principles are not necessarily in tension because it could be the case that partisan gerrymandering claims are just not the type of Election Clause claims that the Court feels capable of resolving even though other types of claims under this provision might be more manageable. Despite the Court’s assertions to the contrary, however, Rucho might have opened the door for the Elections Clause to function as a provision that has limited judicial enforcement, a sentiment that the Court sought to shut down in Moore v. Harper.

2) Second, what does Moore mean in light of Milligan, the Alabama Section 2 case from a couple of weeks ago that shocked every election scholar I know? One might say that the Court is affirming that it is still very much a player in the democracy space, again pushing back against the (rightful) perception that, after Rucho and Bronovich, the Court is less committed to policing our system of democracy. In addition, both Milligan and Moore offer an opportunity for the Court to push back against these negative perceptions by simply reaffirming the status quo. Milligan reaffirmed that Section 2 vote dilution claims are still actionable under the Gingles framework, and Moore rejects a theory that would have caused a sea change in how state courts oversee the actions of state legislatures with respect to federal elections. The Court gets a huge pay off, in terms of maintaining its legitimacy, but by structurally changing very little.

3) There are a couple things at play in Moore that run contrary to our assumptions about the Court’s more general anti-Democratic posture that are worth pointing out. First, there may just be some arguments that go too far, and would be too disruptive should they become law, that they turn off some of the more conservative members of the Court. That says a lot about where we are as a democracy, and where this Court is as an institution.

To this point, Chief Justice Roberts (writing for the majority) discusses Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission as proof that legislatures are not the sole source of lawmaking authority over federal elections within a state, even though he wrote a lengthy dissent in that case arguing that the term “legislature” as used in the Elections Clause means the institutional legislature and not the broader lawmaking processes. He reliance on this case, despite his very heated dissent, is further proof (along with Justice Thomas’ reliance on the case as well) that the goal posts have moved from basic questions of whether “legislature” means “legislature” to more nuanced concerns about whether legislatures should be given broad authority, subject only to very little oversight from a massively dysfunctional Congress, to blow up any notion of democracy within their borders. Roberts is known for using subsequent cases to minimize or subvert holdings that he doesn’t necessarily agree with, but he doesn’t do that here (at least not as much as he normally does, see point 4 below).

Second, John Roberts, in rejecting the independent state legislature theory, might be defending his legacy. He wrote Rucho, which asserted that state law and state courts could be a more than adequate response to the ills of partisan gerrymandering than any remedy the federal courts could provide. Would he be willing to sign on to any theory that could call into question a decision (and a controversial one, at that) that Roberts authored less than five years ago? Probably not. Again, it is not that the author of Shelby County has become a huge democracy advocate but he might feel the need to defend his turf a bit.

I am sure that, given these stakes, 100 years of precedent rejecting the idea that state legislatures have exclusive authority to regulate federal elections is much more persuasive than the Federalist 78, which the dissenters rely on to argue that state legislatures are empowered in this manner. Moore is also a very common-sense decision – state legislatures cannot be free of the constraints of the documents (state constitutions) that created them nor has it been true that state legislatures exercise power in this domain independent of the other branches of state government. The fact that we had to contemplate otherwise is an insane bit of nonsense that I hope died a sure death today.

4) To be clear, I am not asserting that the Roberts Court has all of a sudden become the Warren Court. Towards the end of the opinion, in typical Roberts form, he offers some vague constraints on state courts that apply when they are policing state legislative action on the Elections Clause, a standard that (as Derek points out here) very much resembles the standard offered by Chief Justice Rehnquist over two decades ago in Bush v. Gore. In some ways, this standard is Roberts’ attempt to make sure that “legislature” means “legislature” as much as he possibly can without explicitly running afoul of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission while staying true to the text of the Elections Clause, which empowers the legislature to set the manner of federal elections. What this vague test – that “state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review” – actually means will almost certainly be a point of controversy in years to come. Policing whether state courts have crossed this line will keep federal courts in the business of overseeing federal elections for the foreseeable future, contrary to what Roberts had hoped to achieve in Rucho.

Share this:

More Moore

election law and constitutional law, redistricting, Supreme Court

The Court has asked for another round of briefing on what the heck should happen in Moore v. Harper, the current vehicle for the “independent state legislature” challenge, now that the North Carolina Supreme Court has said that the state constitution doesn’t prohibit the legislature from partisan gerrymandering.  This’ll be quick: briefs are all due by next Thursday.

The North Carolina Constitution doesn’t really purport to set any other specific criteria for congressional districts (there are still some constraints for state legislative lines), so I’m not sure what relief the legislature would be asking for here. (And as others have noted, the Ohio case is waiting in the wings.)

Share this:

“The Impermissibility of Sex as a Voter Qualification”

election administration, election law and constitutional law

Looks like a fascinating paper posted on SSRN today by UVa 3L Holl Chaisson:

Election officials across the country are turning away voters when they perceive a mismatch between the sex listed on the voter’s identification and the voter’s gender presentation. The problem is particularly acute for transgender and gender-nonconforming voters. This Note presents a 50-state survey of voter ID laws and shows that there is no legal basis for using a mismatch or perceived mismatch between a voter’s documented sex and their gender presentation to deny the franchise. No language in any state statute indicates that an individual’s sex is required as necessary evidence of their identity. Furthermore, this Note argues that changing the statutes to require sex as an identity qualifier would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in at least two ways: (1) such a requirement would amount to sex discrimination as that term is best understood in light of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; and (2) under the Supreme Court’s voting rights jurisprudence, such a requirement would constitute an invidious restriction on the right to vote, triggering strict scrutiny under Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, and even if it did not amount to such, would still be struck down under the sliding scale scrutiny of Anderson-Burdick. Hinging the right to vote on the verification of one’s sex is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Share this:

Montana state legislator sues over censure

election law and constitutional law, First Amendment theory, legislation and legislatures, petition clause, political equality

The lawsuit filed today in state court by Rep. Zephyr – Montana’s first openly transgender lawmaker — and several of her constituents contends that her censure and subsequent barring from Capitol grounds violates the Montana state constitution.

I’m still hoping this isn’t a trend.

Share this:

11th Circuit finds Alabama’s felon disenfranchisement law passes constitutional scrutiny

Constitutional Right to Vote, election law and constitutional law, felon voting, NVRA (motor voter)

From an opinion by Judge Tjoflat, joined by Judge Moody (sitting by designation) in Thompson v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama (lightly edited):

Greater Birmingham Ministries, an Alabamian non-profit organization dedicated to aiding low-income individuals, and several Alabamian felons appeal the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama’s summary judgment denying their Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, challenge to Amendment 579 of the Alabama state constitution, their Ex Post Facto Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3, challenge to Amendment 579’s disenfranchisement provisions, and their National Voting Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq., challenge to the format of Alabama’s mail voting registration form. Because we hold that (1) Amendment 579 successfully dissipated any taint from the racially discriminatory motives behind the 1901 Alabama constitution; (2) Amendment 579 does not impose punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (3) Alabama’s mail voting registration form complies with the NVRA, we affirm.

Judge Rosenbaum concurred in part and dissented in part in a longer opinion, which opens:

Deceiving an elector in preparation of her ballot. Altering another person’s ballot. Failing to count legally cast absentee votes. Illegally voting more than once in an election (second violation). Willfully and intentionally signing the name of another elector in a poll book. Bribery of public servants. And perjury.

Perhaps this recitation sounds like a list of felonies that would disqualify an Alabamian from voting under Amendment 579 to Alabama’s constitution—Alabama’s felon-disenfranchisement provision. Nope. Those convicted of any of these voting-fraud-related felonies are A-okay, good to go when it comes to voting in Alabama. Alabama exempts them from its felon-disenfranchisement provision, Amendment 579. Under that provision, only other felons—those convicted of felony crimes that Alabama says are crimes of “moral turpitude”—can’t vote.

Even worse, in the nearly thirty years since Alabama amended its felon-disenfranchisement provision, Alabama has de-fined the phrase “moral turpitude” in contradictory or non-uni-form ways. At one point, Alabama even allowed each local registrar to interpret the term for herself. In other words, when Alabama precluded those convicted of felony crimes of “moral turpitude” from voting, it may as well have excluded those convicted of “whatever felonies Alabama (or any of its local registrars) at any point in the future might say disqualify a voter,” as Alabama had no definition of the phrase “moral turpitude” in mind.

All of this raises the question: just what was Alabama trying to accomplish with its felon-disenfranchisement provision?

. . .

Indeed, when, as here, the amended law does nothing to advance its stated purpose, it cannot cleanse the taint of its discriminatory origins. For that reason, if I were not bound by our precedent, I would hold that Alabama’s felon-disenfranchisement provision violates the Equal Protection Clause. But since I am bound, I cannot and must instead conclude that, under our case law, the provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

That said, though, Alabama’s felon-disenfranchisement statute and its voter registration form do violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and the National Voter Registration Act, respectively. So I would reverse the district court’s denial of those challenges.

Share this: