I have posted A Critical Guide to Bush v. Gore Scholarship (forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article evaluates the emerging legal and political science scholarship created in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, the case that ended the 2000 Florida election controversy between supporters of George W. Bush and Al Gore. It surveys answers that scholars have given to four central questions: (1) Were the Supreme Court’s majority or concurring opinions legally sound? (2) Was the Supreme Court’s result justified, even if the legal reasoning contained in the opinions was unsound? (3) What effects, if any, will the case and the social science research it has spurred have on the development of voting rights law? (4) What does the Court’s resolution of Bush v. Gore tell us about the Supreme Court as an institution?

I have also posted the abstract for The Surprisingly Easy Case for Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures Funding Sham Issue Advocacy (forthcoming in the Election Law Journal‘s special symposium issue on McConnell v. Federal Election Commission). Here is the abstract:

Before the United States Supreme Court decided McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the law related to campaign finance disclosure was a mess. As this commentary (part of a special symposium issue on the case to appear in the Election Law Journal) explains, McConnell resolved a key disclosure question, upholding the constitutionality of new disclosure rules in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) related to contributions and expenditures funding “sham issue advocacy” in candidate elections.
McConnell unfortunately left open many other important questions concerning conflicts between two earlier key Supreme Court cases discussing disclosure, Buckley v. Valeo and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. Even after McConnell, the constitutionality of disclosure rules in three important areas remains unclear: (1) To what extent may the government compel disclosure of a speaker’s identity in face-to-face election-related communications or compel disclosure of the funder of communications on the face of election-related advertisements? (2) To what extent may the government compel disclosure of expenditures by those using modest resources? (3) To what extent may the government compel disclosure of contributions and expenditures in ballot measure campaigns? Answers to these questions will await cases post-McConnell.