By Edward Foley
The 2000 presidential election, with its difficulties in Florida, used to be no longer the 1st significant vote-counting controversy within the nation's history--nor the final. poll Battles lines the evolution of America's adventure with those disputes, from 1776 to now, explaining why they've got proved again and again problematical and providing an institutional solution"
summary: The 2000 presidential election, with its difficulties in Florida, used to be now not the 1st significant vote-counting controversy within the nation's history--nor the final. poll Battles lines the evolution of America's event with those disputes, from 1776 to now, explaining why they've got proved repeatedly frustrating and supplying an institutional answer"
Read or Download Ballot battles: the history of disputed elections in the United States PDF
Similar legal history books
America's criminal awareness used to be excessive throughout the period that observed the imprisonment of abolitionist editor William Lloyd Garrison, the execution of slave innovative Nat Turner, and the hangings of John Brown and his Harpers Ferry co-conspirators.
In a notable booklet in keeping with prodigious study, Morton J. Horwitz deals a sweeping review of the emergence of a countrywide (and smooth) felony process from English and colonial antecedents. He treats the evolution of the typical legislations as highbrow heritage and in addition demonstrates how the transferring perspectives of non-public legislations grew to become a dynamic aspect within the financial progress of the us.
This is often the definitive publication at the felony and financial framework for civil society organisations (CSOs) in China from earliest occasions to the current day. Civil Society in China lines the ways that legislation and rules have formed civil society over the 5,000 years of China's background and appears at ways that social and fiscal background have affected the felony alterations that experience happened over the millennia.
A person who desires to know how abortion has been handled traditionally within the western criminal culture needs to first come to phrases with fairly varied yet interrelated old trajectories. On one hand, there's the traditional Judeo-Christian condemnation of prenatal murder as a incorrect warranting retribution; at the different, there's the juristic definition of "crime" within the glossy feel of the observe, which extraordinary the time period sharply from "sin" and "tort" and used to be tied to the increase of Western jurisprudence.
Extra info for Ballot battles: the history of disputed elections in the United States
The rights of the people do not depend upon so precarious a foundation. 33 The law must be concerned, according to this policy argument, about the incentives it gives to poll workers. If the incentives run in the wrong direction, the right to vote itself may be undermined. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to overlook breaches committed by poll workers in the performance of their duties, in order to uphold the fundamental right to vote. Moreover, this point applies especially when the poll workers’ breach does not affect an accurate determination of which candidate won the election.
When the Founders first encountered vote-counting disputes in congressional elections, they were forced to consider federalism issues that simply had not existed before. For example, if the US House of Representatives determined a state’s count of ballots inaccurate, could the House award the seat to a different candidate than the one the state certified as winning; or, instead, could the House only void the result and send the matter back for the state to fill the seat another way, including by choosing to hold a new election?
In 2008, Minnesota again was especially successful in resolving a major disputed election precisely because it used a special-purpose panel to do so—one that was intentionally and transparently structured to be balanced and neutral toward both sides. By contrast, Washington’s experience with its gubernatorial recount in 2004 showed that when states use institutions that are structurally tilted toward one side, the result is inevitably a lingering perception of unfairness on the other side. A federal court, however imperfect, is more likely to be perceived as fair than a structurally biased state tribunal.