Is the Supreme Court at Odds with Itself When It Comes to Democracy? A Look at the Disparities Between Crawford and Citizens United

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
ChapmanAllegra
{"title":"Is the Supreme Court at Odds with Itself When It Comes to Democracy? A Look at the Disparities Between Crawford and Citizens United","authors":"ChapmanAllegra","doi":"10.1089/elj.2016.0409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For a democracy to truly function, most—if not all—eligible citizens must participate. That means voters need fair access to the booth; but they also need a reason to get there, a belief that their votes count for something. As of now, our country isn't living up to that standard. The last decade ushered in a remarkably tougher landscape for voters, much of it thanks to the Supreme Court's recent decisions. In less than a decade, five justices—with some overlap in the decisions' majorities—gave voter ID laws the green light, unleashed a flood of new money from corporations into the political realm, and eviscerated a longstanding federal law that once stopped states from implementing limiting voting measures. The result? Democracy got pummeled at both ends. Voters, particularly low-income and those of color, started facing hurdles in numbers not seen since the 1960s. When they do make it to the ballot box, many fear their votes will get drowned out by special interests, dumping unprecedented amoun...","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/elj.2016.0409","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2016.0409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract For a democracy to truly function, most—if not all—eligible citizens must participate. That means voters need fair access to the booth; but they also need a reason to get there, a belief that their votes count for something. As of now, our country isn't living up to that standard. The last decade ushered in a remarkably tougher landscape for voters, much of it thanks to the Supreme Court's recent decisions. In less than a decade, five justices—with some overlap in the decisions' majorities—gave voter ID laws the green light, unleashed a flood of new money from corporations into the political realm, and eviscerated a longstanding federal law that once stopped states from implementing limiting voting measures. The result? Democracy got pummeled at both ends. Voters, particularly low-income and those of color, started facing hurdles in numbers not seen since the 1960s. When they do make it to the ballot box, many fear their votes will get drowned out by special interests, dumping unprecedented amoun...
美国最高法院在民主问题上是否存在分歧?看看克劳福德案和联合公民案之间的差异
摘要民主要想真正发挥作用,大多数——如果不是所有——符合条件的公民都必须参与。这意味着选民需要公平地进入投票站;但他们也需要一个到达那里的理由,一个相信他们的选票有意义的信念。到目前为止,我们的国家还没有达到那个标准。过去十年给选民带来了一个非常艰难的局面,这在很大程度上要归功于最高法院最近的裁决。在不到十年的时间里,五位大法官——在裁决的多数席位上有一些重叠——为选民身份法开了绿灯,从企业向政治领域释放了大量新资金,并废除了一项长期存在的联邦法律,该法律曾阻止各州实施限制投票措施。结果如何?民主受到了两端的打击。选民,尤其是低收入和有色人种选民,开始面临自20世纪60年代以来从未见过的人数障碍。当他们真的进入投票箱时,许多人担心他们的选票会被特殊利益淹没,倾倒前所未有的金钱。。。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信