About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Election L.J. 1 (2004)

handle is hein.journals/enlwjr3 and id is 1 raw text is: ELECTION LAW JOURNAL Volume 3, Number 1, 2004 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The Party Line DANIEL H. LOWENSTEIN and RICHARD L. HASEN A S THIS ISSUE WENT TO PRESS, the Supreme Court decided McConnell v. Federal Elec- tion Commission, the consolidated cases con- sidering the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), more commonly known as McCain-Feingold. As we announced in our last issue, we are plan- ning a special issue of the Election Law Jour- nal with extensive commentary on the Mc- Connell case, which will be published as rapidly as possible. In the last issue of ELJ (volume 2, number 4, 2003), we ran an article by Professor Edward Foley concerning the constitutionality of some of the challenged BCRA provisions, 'Narrow Tailoring' Is Not the Opposite of 'Over- breadth.' We posted that article early on the ELJ website (www.liebertpub.com/ elj) so that it would be available to the Supreme Court, the litigants, and the broader legal and scholarly community. In this issue, we run a reply to that article by Robert Bauer in our Forum section. Bauer takes issue with some of Foley's argu- ments supporting the law's constitutionality. Foley has written a brief response to Bauer's re- ply, also appearing in the Forum section. Fi- nally, Bauer provides a concluding comment. As with the original article, we have made these Forum pieces available early on the ELJ website. Thus, these articles went to press be- fore the McConnell decision emerged from the Supreme Court. Last spring, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases in a number of years under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In Geor- gia v. Ashcroft, the Court changed what many thought was the test for measuring retrogres- sion of minority voting strength under section 5 from a fairly mechanical procedure to a more fact-intensive inquiry. In our first article, Pamela Karlan offers a critical look at the case and what it might mean for the future of section 5 claims. Our second article concerns the subject of push polling, a series of telephone calls in which neg- ative information about candidates is communi- cated to voters in the guise of asking polling questions. Evan Gerstmann and Matthew Streb argue that the practice is pernicious, propose leg- islation to outlaw the practice, and defend the proposed legislation's constitutionality. The BCRA case is not the only important pending election law case on the Supreme Court's current docket. J. Clark Kelso previews Vieth v. Jubelirer, a case reconsidering the rules for judging the constitutionality of partisan ger- rymanders first set forth in the 1986 case Davis v. Bandemer. We conclude with a book review. J. Morgan Kousser reviews Laughlin MacDonald's book on voting rights struggles in Georgia. 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most