Why We Cannot Ask Why: Ethical Independence and Voter Intent

By Taylor, Tim | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer 2011 | Go to article overview

Why We Cannot Ask Why: Ethical Independence and Voter Intent


Taylor, Tim, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


Should a vote still count if cast for the wrong reason? More specifically, when citizens decide a legislative question themselves, whether through initiative, referendum, or plebiscite, should judges require their votes to be backed by a certain level of responsibility, of "equal concern and respect"? (1) This is not to ask whether laws passed by popular vote require some level of rationality or decency. That is too easy; obviously, they must. (2) Rather, the question is whether the law should require each individual voter, in the cloister of the voting booth, to cast her vote rationally and responsibly. This Note argues no.

Courts and commentators have struggled to determine when laws, whether enacted directly by citizens or through regular legislation, are invalid because of their intentions? This analysis, however, has ignored a key distinction between voter motivation and legislative design. Voter motivation is the particular reason a citizen (or legislator) chooses to vote for or against a particular measure. Legislative design, on the other hand, is what the measure, as divined by tools of statutory construction, is calculated to do. Inquiry into legislative design is necessary for proper adjudication. Inquiry into voter motivation, however, should be forbidden because it intrudes upon voters' "ethical independence," (4) as Professor Ronald Dworkin terms it.

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I discusses the cases and commentary confronting the question of inquiry into voter intent. The traditional approach has been to bar such inquiry. However, recent court decisions have eroded that rule. Part II posits a defense of the traditional position. Although the legal doctrine locates such defenses under the First Amendment's freedoms of speech and association and the right to privacy, such an approach is an unwieldy shield for voter freedom. Instead, such freedom is best founded in the principle of ethical independence, which animates--but extends far beyond--the First Amendment and the right to privacy. This principle of ethical independence requires the distinction noted above between motivation and design. Part III addresses two objections to Part II. First, it discusses the problem of the law's willingness in other areas to look into the mind. Second, it distinguishes Professor Cass Sunstein's notion of "naked preferences."

I. CHALLENGES TO THE PROHIBITION ON INQUIRING INTO VOTER MOTIVATION

Citizen-enacted legislation has a long and controversial history in the United States. (5) Critics have disparaged the practice both as a means for raw majorities to bulldoze minority opposition (6) and as a lawmaking process devoid of deliberation, information, and expertise. (7) Some argue further that the two defects go hand-in-hand. (8) Given the procedural shortcomings of direct democracy, courts have often stepped in to police its bounds.

The settled law--The Supreme Court's first encounter with direct democracy occurred in 1912, (9) when it heard argument to determine whether Oregon's referendum procedure violated the Republican Guarantee Clause. (10) The Court held the matter nonjusticiable. (11) Since then, no case before the Supreme Court has challenged whether a mode of direct democracy, as a procedure itself, is constitutional.

The Court has encountered numerous cases, however, questioning the constitutionality of laws enacted by popular vote. Resolving these cases has invariably required interpretation of the intent behind the laws in question. (12) Stated simply, the Court's view has been that "[t]he sovereignty of the people is itself subject to those constitutional limitations which have been duly adopted and remain unrepealed." (13) The "implementation of [a law] through popular referendum [cannot] immunize it." (14) In theory, then, the review of popularly enacted and legislatively enacted statutes is the same.

In the equal protection context, courts purport to apply the same rational basis standard to all legislation, whether enacted by citizens or their representatives. …

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

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.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

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

Why We Cannot Ask Why: Ethical Independence and Voter Intent
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access 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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.