ELECTION LAW/VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES


HERE IS WHERE YOU AN LEARN A BIT MORE ABOUT AMERICAN ELECTION LAW/VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES AS THEY APPLY IN THE UNITED STATES.  I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS CONTENT DOES NOT CONSITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.  CHECK OUT THE OYEZ PROJECT FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE SPECIFIC SUPREME COURT CASES.

what the u.s. supreme court has said about election law/voting rights

  • HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION (1966) - THE COURT RULES THAT THE RIGHT OF QUALIFIED CITIZENS TO VOTE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.  
  • WILLIAMS V. RHODES (1969) - THE COURT RULES THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PROTECTS THIRD-POLITICAL PARTY CANDIDATES.  STRIKES DOWN A BALLOT ACCESS LAW SYSTEM THAT MADE IT VIRTUALLY IMPPOSIBLE FOR INDEPENDENT/THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES TO GET ONTO THE ELECTION BALLOT.  SUBSEQUENT BALLOT ACCESS CASE LAW DOES NOT SEEM TO FOLLOW THIS CASE.  SEE SUGGESTED READING LIST FOR MORE DETAILS.
  • BULLOCK V. CARTER (1971) - THE COURT RULES THAT WHEN STATES IMPOSE A FEE TO GET ONTO THE ELECTION BALLOT, IT MOST PROVIDE SOME OTHER MEANS OF GETTING ONTO THE BALLOT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE INDIGENT/POOR.
  • BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976) - THE COURT UPHOLDS CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND INVALIDATES OTHERS ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS.
  • BURDICK V. TAKUSHI (1992) - THE COURT UPHOLDS A STATE BAN ON WRITE-IN VOTES, EVEN IN UNCONTESTED ELECTIONS.
  • TIMMONS V TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY (1997) - THE COURT UPHOLDS A STATE BAN ON VOLUNTARY CROSS-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS (AKA ELECTORAL FUSION).  
  • ARK. EDUC. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES (1998) - RULES THAT A PUBLIC, TELEVISED DEBATE CAN CHOOSE TO EXCLUDE INDEPENDENT/MINOR PARTY CANDIDATES.

federal & state election law

issues in election law/voting rights

SUGGESTED READING LIST

  • A SECOND LOOK AT THIRD PARTIES: CORRECTING THE SUPREME COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF ELECTIONS.  BY DMITRI EVSEEV. 2005.