Professor Nate Persily’s Analysis of 2007-2008 Election Law Decision of U.S. Supreme Court

Columbia Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily has this interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s election law decisions in the terms covering the latter part of 2007, and all of 2008. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s Electionlawblog for the link. The article is 31 pages. Especially interesting is the “Regulation of Political Parties” section of the article, which begins on page 23. It says, “The Rehnquist Court’s decisions concerning the rights of political parties tended to follow two themes. The first was a general disregard for minor parties’ claims either for ballot access or other associational rights. The second was robust protection for major parties’ rights.”


Comments

Professor Nate Persily’s Analysis of 2007-2008 Election Law Decision of U.S. Supreme Court — No Comments

  1. The party hack Supremes are unable and unwilling to detect the Equal in the Equal Protection Clause regarding ballot access — since each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election.

    The small armies of MORON election law profs are likewise brain dead ignorant about equal ballot access.

    The gerrymander empires continue to rot — possibly to a total economic meltdown

  2. What I believe we may have to do is pass a national fair ballot access law, with equal protection for the protection of endangered parties.
    Linde Knighton

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.