Gatekeeping vs. Balancing in the Constitutional Law of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty on the High Court

By Elmendorf, Christopher S.; Foley, Edward B. | The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, December 2008 | Go to article overview

Gatekeeping vs. Balancing in the Constitutional Law of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty on the High Court


Elmendorf, Christopher S., Foley, Edward B., The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal


ABSTRACT

This Essay examines the methodological upheaval created by the quartet of constitutional election law cases decided during October Term 2007. Prior to this Term, the ascendant analytic approach called for a threshold characterization of the burden on the plaintiff's rights, which characterization determined whether the court would apply strict scrutiny or lax, rational-basis-like review. The characterization was generally formal in nature. But in light of the Supreme Court's latest decisions, it is now open to a lower court adjudicating a First Amendment or Equal Protection challenge to an election law-absent a Supreme Court precedent squarely on point-(1) to engage in unmediated, all-things-considered balancing, focusing either on the overall reasonableness of the challenged law or on the reasonableness of exempting or otherwise accommodating the plaintiff or plaintiff-class; (2) to apply strict scrutiny after determining that the law (relative to some practicable alternative) has a large, demonstrable adverse impact on voting, political association, or the competitiveness of campaigns; (3) to apply strict scrutiny after identifying a facial attribute of the law itself that renders it suspect in the judge's eye; (4) to apply extremely deferential review because the law does not have attributes that the judge deems facially suspect and because the judge is leery of getting bogged down in empirical debates or indulging in the guess work of open-ended balancing; or (5) to reject the claim after positing that it raises questions about democratic fairness concerning which there is no discernable historical consensus. During October Term 2007, the Court vacillated among these approaches, while providing precious little guidance to lower courts about the circumstances that warrant one or another methodology. We suggest that the methodological pluralism in these decisions, coupled with a lack of explicit normative direction, may indicate that most Justices are approaching constitutional election law thinking less about doctrinal coherence or interpretive principle than about the instrumental consequences of their rulings for the system of government as a whole.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court has long thought that election law constitutes a distinctive constitutional domain, and that judge-made doctrine ought to account for the characteristics that distinguish this domain from others. There has, of course, been considerable evolution in what the Justices see as the domain's central distinguishing characteristics, and in what they understand to be the appropriate doctrinal response. In Justice Frankfurter's day, the dominant concern was the risk that judicial interventions with respect to the ground rules of political competition would come to be seen as partisan interventions, and that this would eviscerate the foundation of public support upon which judicial authority ultimately rests. 1 For Frankfurter and his allies, the appropriate response was to deem constitutional questions about the political process nonjusticiable except insofar as the text of the Constitution or an independent constitutional prohibition - one with more general applicability - makes avoidance untenable.2

The Warren Court famously rejected Frankfurter's solution to the public perceptions problem and ushered in a new era.3 The defining ideas were that the Constitution protects unenumerated political rights, and that laws burdening the exercise of such rights are presumptively unconstitutional and may be upheld only upon passing the exacting test of justification known as "strict scrutiny."4

The next transformation occurred in the early 1970s.5 The Court did not backtrack from the idea of a fundamental right to vote or a correlative right of ballot access for candidates, but it significantly qualified the notion that state-created impediments to the exercise of these rights are presumptively unconstitutional.6 Whereas the fact or appearance of judicial partisanship was the animating concern in Frankfurter's era, and political injustice was the Warren Court's dominant worry, the new era - which we'll call the Storer era - was marked by an appreciation of the sheer pervasiveness of election regulation, much of which seemed prima facie justifiable. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Gatekeeping vs. Balancing in the Constitutional Law of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty on the High Court
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.