<x-flowed>From: dmitri evseev
<devseev@gmail.com>
To:
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Article on minor political parties and the Supreme Court
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_1315_27254344.1136930825798"
------=_Part_1315_27254344.1136930825798
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I am sending this brief note to thank all the members of this list who have
given comments, criticisms, and suggestions to my article "A Second Look at
Third Parties: Correcting the Supreme Court's Understanding of Elections."
I greatly appreciate all of your help and scholarship in the field. The
Article has now been published in its final form, and is available for
full-text download on the website of the Boston University Law Review.
http://www.bu.edu/law/lawreview/
The abstract now reads as follows:
This Article presents a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court's
ballot-access jurisprudence as it relates to minor political parties, and
challenges the conventional "structuralist" view that ascribes shortcomings
in the Court's approach to the doctrinal constraints of an
individual-rights-based analysis. Structuralist critics correctly observe
that the Supreme Court's ballot-access rulings almost always disfavor minor
parties and protect the two dominant parties. Because these decisions appea=
r
to rely on an unduly narrow understanding of the expressive value of voting
and on a misunderstanding of the role played by minor political parties
within the context of a predominantly two-party system, scholars have
proposed a number of alternative frameworks
to guide the Court's inquiry. However, if the problem is indeed one of the
Justices' faulty background assumptions about the political process, it is
unlikely to be solved by the wording of any particular test, structuralist
or otherwise. This Article attempts to demonstrate that a willing court
could easily apply the conventional balancing test in Anderson v. Celebrezz=
e
in a manner that would encompass most of the inquiries necessary for a more
accurate weighing of the interests at stake. The difficult task suggested,
though barely attempted, here is to persuade judges to re-examine their
assumptions to the extent that they conflict with contemporary scholarly
understandings of the electoral process.
I hope you have time to take a look at the completed piece and am delighted=
,
as always, to receive any comments.
Best regards,
Dmitri Evseev
Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20006
On 5/25/05, dmitri evseev
<devseev@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear election-law scholars,
I am writing to let you know of my article on minor political parties
and the Supreme Court, which has been accepted for publication in the
December issue of the Boston University Law Review. The manuscript is
entitled "A Second Look at Third Parties: Correcting the Supreme
Court's Understanding of Elections" and explores the possibility of
using the framework of Anderson v. Celebrezze to evaluate burdens on
minor political parties in a more rigorous and realistic manner than
the Court has done so far.
An abstract and a draft version of the manuscript are available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D702625 and I would greatly appreciate your
feedback, especially since it is very much a work-in-progress. Some
of you have already suggested a number of edits, which I am working to
incorporate into the next draft. Also, I will certainly be
incorporating some analysis of Clingman v. Beaver, so I would
especially appreciate any thoughts on the bearing of the decision on
my main premises.
Since until now I have only been an interested listener rather than a
participant in this forum, I should also add a few words about myself
as an introduction. I am currently a practitioner in Washington DC
and have over the last several years worked on a number of
election-related litigations including McConnell v. FEC, the defense
of Vermont's clean elections law, and a suit challenging New Jersey's
definition of a political party.
My interest in election law developed in law school, where I served as
Research Chair of Harvard's Appleseed Center for Electoral Reform. I
have published a couple of student notes on election law (in the
Harvard Law Review and the Harvard Journal on Legislation) and, since
graduating in 2001, have maintained a strong academic interest in the
field. My current article is a product of research done over the last
several years, and has benefitted tremendously from the scholarship of
many members of this list. I, myself, am only an aspiring academic,
and therefore very much look forward to any suggestions / criticisms /
ideas to improve my work and my understanding of the relevant issues.
Sincerely,
Dmitri Evseev
Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20006
Tel. 202-282-5931
Fax. 202-282-5100
------=_Part_1315_27254344.1136930825798
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">I am sending this brief note t=
o thank all the members of this list who have given comments, criticisms, a=
nd suggestions to my article "A Second Look at Third Parties: &nb=
sp;Correcting the Supreme Court's Understanding of Elections." I=
greatly appreciate all of your help and scholarship in the field. Th=
e Article has now been published in its final form, and is available for fu=
ll-text download on the website of the Boston University Law Review.
<br><br><a href=3D
"http://www.bu.edu/law/lawreview/">
http://www.bu.edu/law/=
lawreview/</a><br><br>The abstract now reads as follows:<br><br>This Articl=
e presents a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court's ballot-access ju=
risprudence as it relates to minor political parties, and challenges the co=
nventional "structuralist" view that ascribes shortcomings in the Court's a=
pproach to the doctrinal constraints of an individual-rights-based analysis=
. Structuralist critics correctly observe that the Supreme Court's ballot-a=
ccess rulings almost always disfavor minor parties and protect the two domi=
nant parties. Because these decisions appear to rely on an unduly narrow un=
derstanding of the expressive value of voting and on a misunderstanding of =
the role played by minor political parties within the context of a predomin=
antly two-party system, scholars have proposed a number of alternative fram=
eworks
<br>to guide the Court's inquiry. However, if the problem is indeed one of =
the Justices' faulty background assumptions about the political process, it=
is unlikely to be solved by the wording of any particular test, structural=
ist or otherwise. This Article attempts to demonstrate that a willing court=
could easily apply the conventional balancing test in Anderson v. Celebrez=
ze in a manner that would encompass most of the inquiries necessary for a m=
ore accurate weighing of the interests at stake. The difficult task suggest=
ed, though barely attempted, here is to persuade judges to re-examine their=
assumptions to the extent that they conflict with contemporary scholarly u=
nderstandings of the electoral process.
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> </div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">I hope you have time to take a=
look at the completed piece and am delighted, as always, to receive any co=
mments.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Dmitri Evseev<br>Winston & Strawn L=
LP
<br>1700 K Street, NW<br>Washington DC 20006<br><br>On 5/25/05, dmitri evse=
ev <<a href=3D
"mailto:devseev@gmail.com">
devseev@gmail.com</a>> wrote=
:<br>> Dear election-law scholars,<br>> <br>> I am writing to let =
you know of my article on minor political parties
<br>> and the Supreme Court, which has been accepted for publication in =
the<br>> December issue of the Boston University Law Review. =
The manuscript is<br>> entitled "A Second Look at Third Parties:&nb=
sp; Correcting the Supreme
<br>> Court's Understanding of Elections" and explores the possibil=
ity of<br>> using the framework of Anderson v. Celebrezze to evaluate bu=
rdens on<br>> minor political parties in a more rigorous and realistic m=
anner than
<br>> the Court has done so far.<br>> <br>> An abstract and a draf=
t version of the manuscript are available at<br>> <a href=3D"
http://ssrn=
.com/abstract=3D702625">
http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D702625</a> and I would g=
reatly appreciate your
<br>> feedback, especially since it is very much a work-in-progress.&nbs=
p; Some<br>> of you have already suggested a number of edits, which=
I am working to<br>> incorporate into the next draft. Also, =
I will certainly be
<br>> incorporating some analysis of Clingman v. Beaver, so I would<br>&=
gt; especially appreciate any thoughts on the bearing of the decision on<br=
> my main premises.<br>> <br>> Since until now I have only been a=
n interested listener rather than a
<br>> participant in this forum, I should also add a few words about mys=
elf<br>> as an introduction. I am currently a practitioner in=
Washington DC<br>> and have over the last several years worked on a num=
ber of
<br>> election-related litigations including McConnell v. FEC, the defen=
se<br>> of Vermont's clean elections law, and a suit challenging New Jer=
sey's<br>> definition of a political party.<br>> <br>> My interest=
in election law developed in law school, where I served as
<br>> Research Chair of Harvard's Appleseed Center for Electoral Reform.=
I<br>> have published a couple of student notes on election =
law (in the<br>> Harvard Law Review and the Harvard Journal on Legislati=
on) and, since
<br>> graduating in 2001, have maintained a strong academic interest in =
the<br>> field. My current article is a product of research d=
one over the last<br>> several years, and has benefitted tremendously fr=
om the scholarship of
<br>> many members of this list. I, myself, am only an aspiri=
ng academic,<br>> and therefore very much look forward to any suggestion=
s / criticisms /<br>> ideas to improve my work and my understanding of t=
he relevant issues.
<br>> <br>> Sincerely,<br>> <br>> Dmitri Evseev<br>> Winston=
& Strawn LLP<br>> 1700 K Street, NW<br>> Washington DC 20006<br>=
> Tel. 202-282-5931<br>> Fax. 202-282-5100<br>> <br> </div>
------=_Part_1315_27254344.1136930825798--