When Judges Carve Democracies: A Primer on Court-Drawn Redistricting Plans

This essay presents guidelines for courts that undertake to draw their own redistricting plans. Although several dozen courts over the last four redistricting cycles have drawn their own plans, there is precious little in the case law or secondary sources to provide guidance. As a result, courts vary considerably in the procedures they follow and the substantive factors they take into account in their plans. This essay discusses the unique legal constraints on court-drawn plans and assesses the costs and benefits of following various procedures or substantive redistricting principles. The unique context of each case that spurs judicial involvement will often affect a plan more than will universal factors common to all such cases. However, each court that jumps into the political thicket of redistricting must make several critical decisions concerning how much deference it will give to the existing plan, whether to consider the political and incumbency-related effects of its plan, how much input the parties and the public will have in the process, and which, if any, traditional districting principles ought to apply

Gay Marriage, Public Opinion and the Courts

This Article examines trends in public opinion and media coverage on gay marriage to evaluate the claim that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health catalyzed an anti-gay “backlash.” We find that in the immediate aftermath of Lawrence a larger share of the American public expressed hostile attitudes on questions tapping opinions on gay sex and gay marriage. That backlash continued through the two Goodridge decisions and the 2004 election, but appears to have leveled off and even returned to pre-Lawrence levels by the summer of 2005. Over that same period the public appears to have become more sharply divided along ideological lines regarding gay marriage. Another important difference is that a growing share of the public now expresses favorable attitudes toward same-sex civil unions. We conclude with some words of caution on the interpretation of polling data and with general thoughts concerning the impact of court decisions on public opinion

The Place of Competition in American Election Law, in the Marketplace of Democracy

This forthcoming book chapter defines the problem of diminished political competition, describes the relevant legal analogies concerning regulation of economic competition, and explains how the law shapes the competitive environment for elections. It also details how Supreme Court justices have sometimes tried to incorporate competitiveness concerns into their election law decisions in cases concerning ballot access, redistricting, campaign finance, party reform, and term limits. For the most part, constitutional law proves to be both a blunt and a coarse instrument for addressing excesses of partisan greed or self-interest, but justices of varying ideological leanings have invoked such concerns (usually in dissent) to highlight why one or another election law violates the Constitution

Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When Public Opinion Determines Constitutional Law

This study tests the empirical assumptions about American public opinion found in the Supreme Court’s opinions concerning campaign finance reform. The area of campaign finance is a unique one in First Amendment law because the Court has allowed the mere appearance of a problem (in this case, “corruption”) to justify the curtailment of recognized First Amendment rights of speech and association. Since Buckley v. Valeo, defendants in campaign finance cases have proffered various types of evidence to support the notion that the public perceives a great deal of corruption produced by the campaign finance system. Most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, in which the Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs conducted and submitted into evidence public opinion polls measuring the public’s perception of corruption. This article examines the data presented in that case, but also examines forty years of survey data of public attitudes toward corruption in government. We argue that trends in public perception of corruption may have little to do with the campaign finance system. The share of the population describing government as corrupt went down even as soft money contributions skyrocketed. Moreover, the survey data suggest that an individual’s perception of corruption derives to some extent from that person’s (1) position in society (race, income, education level); (2) opinion of the incumbent President and performance of the economy over the previous year; (3) attitudes concerning taxation and “big government”; and (4) propensity to trust other people, in general. Although we conclude that, indeed, a large majority of Americans believe that the campaign finance system contributes to corruption in government, the data do not suggest that campaign finance reform will have an effect on these attitudes