Description
Book SynopsisThe Era of Political Partisanship on the U.S. Supreme Court challenges conventional notions of consensus-building and neutral decision-making on the U.S. Supreme Court and argues that the justices vote their partisan preferences on election law cases. By focusing specifically on election law, Rebe reveals a consistent pattern of partisanship on the Court. The findings controvert popular perceptions of non-biased decision-making and fundamental fairness. The aggregate analysis shows that the justices vote along party-lines in a majority of election law cases, and consensus-building is rare when there is a contentious electoral issue at stake. Moreover, these decisions often conflict with principles of stare decisis, originalism, or judicial restraint. The topics covered include: gerrymandering, campaign finance, voter ID laws, and mail-in voting, among others. Rebe also conducts a content analysis of the most controversial election law cases of the past twenty years, such as: Vieth v. Jubelirer, Crawford v. Marion County, Citizens United v. FEC, and Shelby County v. Holder. This book provides a thorough overview of two decades of election law cases and sheds light on the impact these decisions have had on remaking America’s electoral institutions.
Table of ContentsChapter 1: Partisan Preferences in Supreme Court Decision-Making
Chapter 2: Bush v. Gore (2000)
Chapter 3: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
Chapter 4: Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003)
Chapter 5: Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
Chapter 6: FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)
Chapter 7: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)
Chapter 8: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Chapter 9: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011)
Chapter 10: Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Chapter 11: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
Chapter 12: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph (2018)
Chapter 13: Republican National Committee, et al. v. Democratic Nat’l Committee, et al. (2020)
