Democracy and Voting
Promoting Political Participation: A Conversation Among State Legislators
On February 25, ACS hosted a panel of state legislators that discussed proposals and developments in their states designed to expand voting rights and increase participation in the electoral process. The panelists have worked on an array of such legislation, including initiatives to block illegal Election Day activities, to implement Election Day Registration, to agree to a National Popular Vote, to restore voting rights to ex-offenders, and to increase the security of electronic voting machines. The panelists discussed real-world models and cutting-edge ideas of how to further the promise of democracy.
The panel featured:
Monday, February 25, 2008
Holeman Lounge
The National Press Club
529 14th Street NW
Washington, DC 20045
The Seventh Amendment: The Key to Reversing Buckley v. Valeo
William P. Kreml
In The Seventh Amendment: The Key to Reversing Buckley v. Valeo, University of South Carolina – Columbia, Department of Political Science Distinguished Professor Emeritus William P. Kreml, argues that the jurisprudence invalidating campaign finance legislation is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill of Rights and, in particular, the Seventh Amendment. Professor Kreml discusses the tension between the two sets of Founders, the federalists and the anti-federalists, and likewise between the original seven articles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Professor Kreml notes that the Constitution not only reflects differing views on the proper interaction between government and citizens, but also the relationship between debtors and creditors—a concern that underlies the Seventh Amendment, which protected debtor-friendly judgments by juries from court review. Professor Kreml argues that our campaign finance system today implicates these same concerns, as large campaign contributions are similar to unencumbered contracts of the eighteenth century and undermine the democracy that the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect, and therefore the regulation of such contributions is constitutional.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Kreml Issue Brief.pdf | 212.52 KB |
Election Debate is a Success
Rutgers held its annual debate against the Federalist Society today. The topic of the debate was whether a state requiring voter id presents an undue burden in violation of the constitution. Arguing the affirmative for ACS was Paul Josephson of Hill Wallack LLP. Arguing the negative for the Federalist Society was Professor Bradley Smith. Both speakers did an excellent job making their arguments and raising awareness of the issues. About 35 students were in attendance and a great time was had by all.
Promoting Political Participation: A Conversation Among State Legislators
On February 25, ACS hosted a panel of state legislators that discussed proposals and developments in their states designed to expand voting rights and increase participation in the electoral process. The panelists discussed real-world models and cutting-edge ideas of how to further the promise of democracy.
The Supreme Court and the Indiana Voter ID Law
On January 3, 2008, ACS hosted a press briefing on the Supreme Court cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, both of which concern the constitutionality of an Indiana statute mandating that in-person voters produce government-issued photo identification. Experts from a variety of perspectives discussed the justification for the Indiana law, the burden that it may place on potential voters, the standard for reviewing the law, and the possible impact of a Court decision on future voting rights challenges. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument on these cases on January 9th.
