455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK 73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
http://socialsciencequarterly.org
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:12 PM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] All Foley All the Time
Check it out.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: LSN: Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Vol. 11 No. 6, 12/17/2010 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:13:10 -0500 (EST) From: Legal Scholarship Network <LSN@publish.ssrn.com> To: Rick.Hasen@lls.edu
![]()
_______________________________________________
Vol. 11, No. 6: Dec 17, 2010 DONALD B. TOBIN, EDITOR
Associate Dean for Faculty and the Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law, Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law
tobin.46@osu.edu
Browse ALL abstracts for this journal Announcements
Series is co-sponsored by the Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies at the Moritz College of Law.
LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP NETWORK: PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY PAPER SERIES
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW"Democracy in the United States, 2020 and Beyond"
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 135EDWARD B. FOLEY, Ohio State University College of Law
Email: foley.33@osu.edu
Developing a research agenda to support a decade-long process of electoral reform requires, first, determining how ambitious reform goals should be for a single decade. This paper proposes a moderately ambitious goal of a “state of the art” voting infrastructure, in comparison to even more ambitious possibilities, and describes some of its key features - including “war-gaming” exercises to test for vulnerabilities and a Model Code to resolve disputes over the counting of presidential ballots.
"The McCain v. Obama Simulation: A Fair Tribunal for Disputed Presidential Elections"
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 136EDWARD B. FOLEY, Ohio State University College of Law
Email: foley.33@osu.edu
In October 2008, Election Law @ Moritz (together with other co-sponsoring institutions) conducted an experiment to test the idea whether a specially designed court could achieve a greater appearance of impartiality in deciding a disputed presidential election than the kind of general-jurisdiction supreme courts, both state and federal, that adjudicated Bush v. Gore. This essay describes the genesis of this experiment and its results. The basis for the experiment was a hypothetical case raising equivalent issues to Bush v. Gore, involving both Equal Protection and the power of state legislatures to appoint presidential electors under Article Two of the Constitution, with these issues set in the context of a dispute over provisional ballots cast in Colorado on the assumption that this state (rather than Florida) determined the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. To test the hypothesis of the experiment, a specially designed tribunal was created to adjudicate this hypothetical dispute: two highly-regarded retired jurists from opposite political background (one Democrat and one Republican) were chosen and asked to select a third, neutral judge. These three judges then received briefs and heard oral arguments from two leading Supreme Court practitioners. The judges issued their decision, which turned out to be unanimous. The essay describes the reasoning of their opinion and discusses whether its unanimity can be regarded as successful outcome of the experiment, having a greater appearance of impartiality that the sharply divided supreme court decisions (both state and federal) in Bush v. Gore.
"The Founders’ Bush v. Gore: The 1792 Election Dispute and its Continuing Relevance"
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 137EDWARD B. FOLEY, Ohio State University College of Law
Email: foley.33@osu.edu
In 1792, the Founders of our Republic and its Constitution faced their own version of what our generation knows as Bush v. Gore. It occurred in the context of that year’s election for governor in New York. John Jay was challenging the incumbent, and Jay and his supporters believed that they were wrongly robbed of their rightful victory when the state’s canvassing committee – in divided vote that fell along party-line lines – disqualified one county’s ballots because of a technical defect in the delivery of these ballots from the county to the Secretary of State.
Although the 1792 dispute concerned the rules for ballot delivery, rather than hanging or dimpled chads, the same basic jurisprudential debate in Bush v. Gore existed in 1792. Just as Gore argued for avoiding the disenfranchisement of voters as a consequence of faulty electoral machinery, so too did Jay’s side claim that protecting voters from the loss of their fundamental (and constitutional) right to the franchise was justification for excusing a technical breach of the state’s ballot delivery law. Conversely, just as Bush’s legal team claimed that strict enforcement of Florida’s election rules was necessary to preserve the integrity of the electoral process, so too did Jay’s opponents make the identical argument.
Moreover, this debate about how best to operate democracy in the context of a dispute over the results of an important statewide election consumed the attention of the Founding Generation. Jay’s Federalist Papers co-authors, Hamilton and Madison weighed in with their views, as did Jefferson, Monroe, and Burr. Other important, but less well-known, Founders were also involved. For example, Edmund Randolph, the nation’s first Attorney General, forcefully expounded the integrity argument. James Kent, a Jay supporter who would later be known as “America’s Blackstone” for his Commentaries on American Law, condemned the canvassing committee for being structurally biased against Jay’s side in its membership.
This largely forgotten historical episode, with its similarities to the disputed presidential election of 2000, is more than just an interesting curiosity. Rather, the difficulties that the Founding Generation had with its own version of Bush v. Gore – especially its lack of an institution for resolving the dispute that was perceived to be structurally fair to both sides – helps to explain why our own generation had such difficulty with resolving the 2000 presidential election. We have inherited the constitutional system that the Founders bequeathed to us. But that system did not include an adequate mechanism for handling a disputed election for chief executive, whether governor or president. This Article explores the reasons for the Founders’ inability to equip us, or (as shown by the events of 1792) even themselves, with this necessary element of a well-functioning constitutional democracy. As a nation, we will continue to suffer from this inadequacy until we recognize that the Founders did not give us all that we need and thus we take it upon ourselves to add the missing institutional ingredient to the system they gave us.
Solicitation of Abstracts
The Ohio State University College of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series journal contains abstracts and papers from this institution focused on this area of scholarly research. To access all the papers in this series, please use the following URL: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Ohio-State-Public-Law.html
To submit your research to SSRN, log in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, and click on the My Papers link on the left menu, and then click on Start New Submission at the top of the page.Distribution Services
If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com
Distributed by:
Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Directors
LAW SCHOOL RESEARCH PAPERS - PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY
BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu
RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu
Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-PUB.
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law