[EL] Printz/elections question

[Justin Levitt]

Since no state has refused to hold federal elections since Printz (and 
maybe ever? I know there have been disputes about whether a 
Congressional delegation was proper, but did a state ever send nobody?), 
we've only got analogies.

But in tackling the question of federal mandates, the circuit courts 
dealing with the issue seem to think that the states are simply required 
to hold federal elections, under the conditions that Congress directs -- 
for exactly the Elections Clause reason Brad mentioned last. /See, 
e.g./, Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir. 2008) ("Indeed, 
as the text of the Constitution makes clear, the Clause expressly 
presses states into the service of the federal government by specifying 
that state legislatures "shall" prescribe the details necessary to hold 
congressional elections. This stands in stark contrast to virtually all 
other provisions of the Constitution, which merely tell the states "not 
what they must do but what they can or cannot do." [ ] When it comes to 
time, place, and manner regulations for federal elections, the 
Constitution primarily treats states as election administrators rather 
than sovereign entities.").

Of course, I imagine there's a fairly strong political incentive for any 
single state to hold its federal elections: presumably, West Dakota 
would rather have representation in Congress than not.  And I'd think 
the troops would be called out to prevent de facto secession well before 
states simply refused to hold federal elections in sufficient quantities 
to deprive Congress of a quorum...

Justin

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

On 1/28/2014 6:28 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> Or maybe this is an Inter-Tribal question. After Printz v. US, can the 
> federal government require a state to hold federal elections? It can 
> set the time, place, and manner of the election, and it can send 
> federal officials to monitor and enforce the federal law. But can it 
> force state officials to carry out the federal election if the state 
> simply refuses? I assume it could send in federal officials as 
> necessary and proper to carrying out its powers under the elections 
> clause. But can it force state officers to do the job? Or is this 
> different than Printz because the Constitution requires the states to 
> hold elections for federal office (the legislators "shall" prescribe 
> time, place, and manner of elections, subject to congressional 
> alteration)?
>
> /Bradley A. Smith/
>
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault/
>
> /   Professor of Law/
>
> /Capital University Law School/
>
> /303 E. Broad St./
>
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
>
> /614.236.6317/
>
> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140128/bacff330/attachment.html>