OA573: Harvard Law Review Publishes Dubious Note on Election Law
Added 2022-03-01 04:27:46 +0000 UTCA note in the Harvard Law Review suggests we ought to "Remove presidential elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework." So, just what does that mean and is it a good idea? Listen in as Andrew breaks it down! Also, we've got an update in the Madison Cawthorn situation, and more Kraken sanctions updates!
Links: remedial election plan ruling, Special Masters plan, another kraken loss, Judge Parker ruling, 6th Circuit appeal, Removing Presidential Elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework - Harvard Law Review
Appearances
None. Invite us on!
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
Comments
If Andrew gets around to his argument about states not being able to get rid of elections and directly pick electors - can he circle back to the interstate popular vote compact? It inherently involves states disregarding their popular vote, so I'm not sure how these two are reconciled (as in I am sure Andrew has an explanation, not that I doubt there is an explanation)..
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2022-03-02 17:14:52 +0000 UTCSorry, am I understanding the facts of the Burdick case correctly? Hawaii had a write-in line on ballots but treated it as a vote for "none" instead of for the candidate written in? If so, that is, in the words of the great philosopher Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "insane troll logic". If a state doesn't want people to cast write-in votes, they shouldn't have had the option there at all. (And careful about conflating a two-party system with a major candidate system. I agree with you that it is generally unwise to vote for third-party candidates because of first-past-the-post voting, and I think that the common system of ballot access petitions is a pretty good way to ensure that only candidates who are already popular enough to matter get on the ballot. But surely, for example, Maine and Vermont shouldn't kick their incumbent Independent Senators off their ballots because of a "compelling interest in avoiding factionalism"?)
I'm pretty New Hampshire, but I'm not Libertarian Walks Into a Bear New Hampshire
2022-03-01 15:09:12 +0000 UTC
