election law etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
election law etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

4 Kasım 2020 Çarşamba

Tolson on Voting Rights in BC Legal History Roundtable

Tolson on Voting Rights in BC Legal History Roundtable

The Legal History Roundtable at the Boston College Law School announces its next session, In Congress We Trust? Enforcing Voting Rights from the Founding to the Jim Crow Era, a webinar with Franita Tolson, on Friday, November 13, 2020, 12:00PM-12:55PM:
Registration is required. Zoom link will be sent before the day of the event.  Please join Professor Mary Bilder and Professor Dan Farbman as they welcome Franita Tolson, Vice Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at USC Gould School of Law, to discuss her forthcoming book and the election.  Following the discussion will be a Q&A session.  Free and open to the public.

--Dan Ernst

27 Ekim 2020 Salı

"Democracy Contested"

"Democracy Contested"

[We have the following announcement.  DRE]

Democracy Contested? A virtual event of Cornell University to be held Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:00pm to 8:00pm.

As the U.S. Presidential Election nears, the nation’s courts, political systems and media are preparing for the possibility of a contested outcome. A panel of Cornell faculty experts will examine the history of contested elections in the United States and worldwide, while also discussing how disinformation and fake news reports might influence the election result and voter participation.

Moderator:
David Bateman, Associate Professor, Government

Panelists:

Kenneth Roberts, Richard J. Schwartz Professor, Government
Alexandra Cirone, Assistant Professor, Government
Julilly Kohler-Hausmann, Associate Professor, History

15 Ekim 2020 Perşembe

Smith v. Allwright at University of Kentucky

Smith v. Allwright at University of Kentucky

Lonnie Smith Votes in 1944 Primary

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

The University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center (SCRC) pleased to announce a new exhibit titled “Black Voters, White Primaries." Using case files from the papers of Supreme Court Justice Stanley Forman Reed, as well as other archival materials from the collections, the exhibit explores how Smith v. Allwright (1944) helped end the “white primary," a voter suppression tool that served as the first line of attack—and often the only one needed—to prevent Black Americans from voting in the Jim Crow South. BONUS: UK Rosenberg College of Law Professor Josh Douglas weighs in on voter suppression this election season.

The exhibit was created as part of UK’s John G. Heyburn II Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary, a non-partisan endeavor devoted to the preservation and study of federal judicial history, with a particular focus on Kentuckians in the federal courts. 

Credit for image:  “Courtesy University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center”

14 Ekim 2020 Çarşamba

Zelden on Talking Legal History

Zelden on Talking Legal History

 New on “Talking Legal History” with Siobhan M. M. Barco is her interview of Charles L. Zelden

"about the new expanded edition of his book, Bush v. Gore: Exposing the Growing Crisis in American Democracy (University Press of Kansas, 2020). Zelden is a professor in the Department of History and Political Science at Nova Southeastern University’s Halmos College of Arts and Sciences, where he teaches courses in history, government and legal studies.

"In this third expanded edition Zelden offers a powerful history of voting rights and elections in America since 2000. Bush v. Gore exposes the growing crisis by detailing the numerous ways in which the unlearned and wrongly learned “lessons of 2000” have impacted American election law through the growth of voter suppression via legislation and administrative rulings, and, provides a clear warning of how unchecked partisanship arising out of Bush v. Gore threatens to undermine American democracy in general and the 2020 election in particular."
–Dan Ernst

9 Ekim 2020 Cuma

The 19th Amendment @ 100 @ St. Johns Law

The 19th Amendment @ 100 @ St. Johns Law

 [We have the following announcement.   DRE]

The St. John’s Law Review invites you to explore the past, present, and future of women’s rights in the United States during our 2020 symposium Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Registration here.

Women have always played a vital role in shaping the cultural landscape of America by persistently demanding equality and opportunity. In 1920, the first women exercised their newly secured constitutional right to participate in our democracy, 244 years after this country’s founding. For most non-white women, however, the fight for voting rights continued for decades. For some, the fight is ongoing.

Now, 100 years later, immense progress has been made. The current landscape would be unrecognizable to the suffragettes of the early 20th century. Gender equality, however, is still far from a reality. This symposium will explore the state of gender equality in America, what we can learn from the past 100 years, and what the next 100 years should look like.

Keynote Address:
Taunya Banks, University of Maryland School of Law

Panelists:
Alissa Gomez, University of Houston Law Center
Kit Johnson, The University of Oklahoma College of Law
Cassandra Jones Havard, University of Baltimore School of Law
Nora Demleitner, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Mikah K. Thompson, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Nicole Ligon, Duke Law School

Moderators:
Cheryl L. Wade, St. John's University School of Law
Rosemary Salomone, St. John’s University School of Law
Catherine Duryea, St. John’s University School of Law

28 Eylül 2020 Pazartesi

A Symposium on Race, Citizenship and Women's Right to Vote

A Symposium on Race, Citizenship and Women's Right to Vote

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE]

The symposium Citizenship and Suffrage: Race, Citizenship, and Women’s Right to Vote on the Nineteenth Amendment’s Centennial, sponsored by the Washington College of Law, American University, will take place online via Zoom on Tuesday, October 6, from 05:00PM - 06:30PM.

The event will describe how citizenship acquisition and citizenship-stripping laws barred women who married noncitizens, as well as women of color generally, from exercising their right to vote even after the 19th Amendment was ratified. Speakers will discuss the history of these laws and then connect these historical events to the challenges to accessing the ballot today.

Panelists include Professor Rose Cuison-Villazor (Rutgers Law School and WCL alum); Professor Kunal Parker (Miami Law School); Celina Stewart (League of Women Voters); Professor Leti Volpp (Berkeley Law School). Professor Amanda Frost (WCL) will moderate.

1 Eylül 2020 Salı

Morley on Partisan Gerrymandering and State Constitutions

Morley on Partisan Gerrymandering and State Constitutions

Michael Morley, Florida State University College of Law, has posted Partisan Gerrymandering and State Constitutions:
Since the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable under the U.S. Constitution, reformers have shifted their focus to pursuing such claims under state constitutions. In some cases, longstanding state constitutional provisions have been re-interpreted to prohibit partisan gerrymandering. In others, state constitutions have been expressly amended to either forbid partisan gerrymandering or transfer authority over drawing congressional and legislative district lines from the state legislature to independent redistricting commissions.

The U.S. Constitution does not confer authority to regulate federal elections on states as entities, however, but rather specifically on the “Legislature” of each state. The “independent state legislature doctrine” teaches that a state constitution is legally incapable of imposing substantive restrictions on the authority over federal elections that the U.S. Constitution confers directly and specifically on a state’s legislature. Over the past 130 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly adopted conflicting positions on the doctrine without recognizing its deep historical roots or normative justifications.

The independent state legislature doctrine reflects the prevailing understanding of states, Congress, and other actors throughout the Nineteenth Century, and was consistently applied during that period across a broad range of circumstances. It protects important structural considerations and is consistent with the political theory underlying the U.S. Constitution’s election-related provisions. Properly understood, the independent state legislature doctrine is a powerful, largely overlooked obstacle to the use of state constitutions to combat partisan gerrymandering.
–Dan Ernst