Free Speech and Economic Power: A Symposium - Toward a democracy-centered reading of the first amendment

Northwestern University Law Review

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 1055-1071

  Neuborne, Burt ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347145809     PISSN: 00293571     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (217)

1. 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
2. Id. at 48-49, 54, 56-57.
3. Id. at 92-93.
4. Id. at 25-27.
5. Id. at 45-47, 53.
6. I confess to subjectivity in assessing the number of occasions on which reformers use corruption arguments as a means of advancing equality values, and in estimating the level of outright bribery and extortion taking place in the political system. Concerns with equality drive my efforts to reform campaign financing, and, while the line is a fine one, my sense is that there is less bribery and extortion taking place today than in the past.
7. Litigating contribution limits in the Eighth Circuit is a prime example. In effect, the Eighth Circuit requires proof of widespread bribery or extortion before it will uphold a limit on the size of a campaign contribution. See Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 161 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. granted sub nom., Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 119 S. Ct. 901 (1999); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1995).
8. Litigating contribution limits in the Eighth Circuit is a prime example. In effect, the Eighth Circuit requires proof of widespread bribery or extortion before it will uphold a limit on the size of a campaign contribution. See Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 161 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. granted sub nom., Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 119 S. Ct. 901 (1999); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1995).
9. Litigating contribution limits in the Eighth Circuit is a prime example. In effect, the Eighth Circuit requires proof of widespread bribery or extortion before it will uphold a limit on the size of a campaign contribution. See Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 161 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. granted sub nom., Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 119 S. Ct. 901 (1999); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1995).
10. 424 U.S. at 27-28, 30.
11. See id. (explicitly recognizing that the interest in preventing the appearance of corruption goes beyond proof of actual quid pro quo bribery or extortion). While concerns about systemic corruption are rooted in a commitment to political equality, many lower courts appear to believe that the sole meaning of corruption is a quid pro quo arrangement that would violate bribery and extortion laws. The Eighth Circuit's campaign finance jurisprudence is a prime example. I have discussed the possible meaning of "corruption" as used in Buckley in Burt Nueborne, One Dollar-One Vote: A Preface to Debating Campaign Finance Reform, 37 WASHBURN L.J. 1, 6-8 (1997).
12. The two major loopholes in the current regulatory regime are: (1) the ability to make unlimited "soft money" contributions to political parties ostensibly for non-federal purposes, and (2) the ability to spend unlimited sums on so-called "issue advertisement" that are intended to affect the outcome of a particular election, but stop short of using the magic words explicitly urging people to vote for or against a particular candidate. A district court has upheld the right of a political party to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of its candidate, as long as the expenditures are funded by "hard money," i.e., money raised in accordance with the $20,000 contribution limit to political parties set forth in the Federal Elections Campaign Act. Federal Election Comm'n v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Colo. 1999). The loopholes are at their widest when unregulated soft money contributions to political parties are used to fund issue advertisements designed to affect the outcome of particular races. The Republican National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Committee have even argued for the right to produce unlimited soft money issue advetisement in coordination with a candidate's campaign. See Republican Nat'l Comm. & Gant Redmon v. Federal Election Comm'n, No. 98-5263, 1998 WL 794896 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 6, 1998) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction).
13. The classic article is Vincent Blasi, Free Speech and the Widening Gyre of Fund-Raising: Why Campaign Spending Limits May Not Violate the First Amendment After All, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 1281 (1994).
14. The Court's democracy jurisprudence has traditionally been driven by equality concerns See Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964) (citizens entitled to equally effective voice in electing representatives). The Court's initial forays into the right to vote and to run for office relied exclusively upon equal protection analysis to paper over the lack of a substantive democracy provision in the Constitution. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
15. The Court's democracy jurisprudence has traditionally been driven by equality concerns See Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964) (citizens entitled to equally effective voice in electing representatives). The Court's initial forays into the right to vote and to run for office relied exclusively upon equal protection analysis to paper over the lack of a substantive democracy provision in the Constitution. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
16. The Court's democracy jurisprudence has traditionally been driven by equality concerns See Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964) (citizens entitled to equally effective voice in electing representatives). The Court's initial forays into the right to vote and to run for office relied exclusively upon equal protection analysis to paper over the lack of a substantive democracy provision in the Constitution. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
17. The Court's democracy jurisprudence has traditionally been driven by equality concerns See Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964) (citizens entitled to equally effective voice in electing representatives). The Court's initial forays into the right to vote and to run for office relied exclusively upon equal protection analysis to paper over the lack of a substantive democracy provision in the Constitution. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
18. From the standpoint of policy preference, I agree with the Buckley Court that the preferred antidote to radical speech imbalance is to strengthen the weak speaker. I support public funding of election campaigns, either through direct subsidies, as in Maine; tax credits, as in Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; matching grants, as in Kentucky and New York City; or efforts to subsidize access to the mass media currently pending in Congress. But policy preferences are not the same as constitutional imperatives. It should be possible to experiment with spending restrictions as an alternative to public financing as we seek the fairest way to finance the democratic process.
19. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence occasionally uses First Amendment rhetoric to describe the act of voting, but has resolutely refused to treat voting as a significant act of political expression. Compare Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (striking down ballot access rules) with Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholding ban on cross-endorsements), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (upholding ban on write-in voting). Accordingly, the courts have never even considered whether our system of pre-election voter registration and voting on a workday, unique among developed democracies, unfairly skews the electorate in favor of wealthier, better-educated voters. See FRANCES FOX PIVENS & RICHARD CLOWARD, WHY AMERICANS DON'T VOTE (1989).
20. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence occasionally uses First Amendment rhetoric to describe the act of voting, but has resolutely refused to treat voting as a significant act of political expression. Compare Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (striking down ballot access rules) with Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholding ban on cross-endorsements), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (upholding ban on write-in voting). Accordingly, the courts have never even considered whether our system of pre-election voter registration and voting on a workday, unique among developed democracies, unfairly skews the electorate in favor of wealthier, better-educated voters. See FRANCES FOX PIVENS & RICHARD CLOWARD, WHY AMERICANS DON'T VOTE (1989).
21. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence occasionally uses First Amendment rhetoric to describe the act of voting, but has resolutely refused to treat voting as a significant act of political expression. Compare Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (striking down ballot access rules) with Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholding ban on cross-endorsements), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (upholding ban on write-in voting). Accordingly, the courts have never even considered whether our system of pre-election voter registration and voting on a workday, unique among developed democracies, unfairly skews the electorate in favor of wealthier, better-educated voters. See FRANCES FOX PIVENS & RICHARD CLOWARD, WHY AMERICANS DON'T VOTE (1989).
22. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence occasionally uses First Amendment rhetoric to describe the act of voting, but has resolutely refused to treat voting as a significant act of political expression. Compare Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (striking down ballot access rules) with Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholding ban on cross-endorsements), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (upholding ban on write-in voting). Accordingly, the courts have never even considered whether our system of pre-election voter registration and voting on a workday, unique among developed democracies, unfairly skews the electorate in favor of wealthier, better-educated voters. See FRANCES FOX PIVENS & RICHARD CLOWARD, WHY AMERICANS DON'T VOTE (1989).
23. Current Supreme Court doctrine recognizes a watered-down version of an equality-based right to run for office that has permitted the two major parties to make it difficult for third-parties, or intra-party challengers to gain access to the ballot in many states. See, e.g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986).
24. Current Supreme Court doctrine recognizes a watered-down version of an equality-based right to run for office that has permitted the two major parties to make it difficult for third-parties, or intra-party challengers to gain access to the ballot in many states. See, e.g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986).
25. First Amendment rhetoric appeared in several of the early one-person one-vote cases, but plays no role in the current fair representation cases. Compare Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), with Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (upholding apportionment on basis of registered voters, not population), Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (recognizing cause of action for extreme political gerrymandering), and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizing cause of action for racial gerrymandering, even when used to increase minority political representation).
26. First Amendment rhetoric appeared in several of the early one-person one-vote cases, but plays no role in the current fair representation cases. Compare Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), with Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (upholding apportionment on basis of registered voters, not population), Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (recognizing cause of action for extreme political gerrymandering), and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizing cause of action for racial gerrymandering, even when used to increase minority political representation).
27. First Amendment rhetoric appeared in several of the early one-person one-vote cases, but plays no role in the current fair representation cases. Compare Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), with Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (upholding apportionment on basis of registered voters, not population), Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (recognizing cause of action for extreme political gerrymandering), and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizing cause of action for racial gerrymandering, even when used to increase minority political representation).
28. First Amendment rhetoric appeared in several of the early one-person one-vote cases, but plays no role in the current fair representation cases. Compare Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), with Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (upholding apportionment on basis of registered voters, not population), Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (recognizing cause of action for extreme political gerrymandering), and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizing cause of action for racial gerrymandering, even when used to increase minority political representation).
29. First Amendment rhetoric appeared in several of the early one-person one-vote cases, but plays no role in the current fair representation cases. Compare Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), with Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (upholding apportionment on basis of registered voters, not population), Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (recognizing cause of action for extreme political gerrymandering), and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizing cause of action for racial gerrymandering, even when used to increase minority political representation).
30. The classic challenge to the role of money in political is J. Skelly Wright, Politics and the Constitution: Is Money Speech?, 85 YALE L.J. 1001 (1976).
31. See infra text accompanying notes 37-38 for a discussion of the Buckley Court's decision to link spending and speech.
32. This is of course merely a statement of the classic dilemma of unconstrained liberalism. By disabling government, we make ourselves vulnerable to concentrates of private power. By empowering government, we make ourselves vulnerable to concentrations of public power. Existing First Amendment doctrine is fixated on the risks associated with public power and dismissive of the risk created by uncontrollable concentrates of private power. No wonder political conservatives have discovered it.
33. See, e.g., MICHAEL J. SANDEL, LIBERALISM AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTICE (2d ed. 1998); ALASDAIR MACINTYRE, AFTER VIRTUE: A STUDY IN MORAL THEORY 226-43 (2d ed. 1984).
34. See, e.g., MICHAEL J. SANDEL, LIBERALISM AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTICE (2d ed. 1998); ALASDAIR MACINTYRE, AFTER VIRTUE: A STUDY IN MORAL THEORY 226-43 (2d ed. 1984).
35. I have attempted a discussion of the relative risks of unconstrained liberalism and communitarianism. See Burt Neuborne, Ghosts in the Attic: Idealized Pluralism, Community and Hate Speech, 27 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 370, 370-77 (1992).
36. See Burt Neuborne, Blues for the Left Hand: A Critique of Cass Sunstein's Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 62 U. CHI. L. REV. 423 (1995).
37. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
38. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
39. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
40. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
41. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
42. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
43. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
44. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
45. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
46. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
47. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
48. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
49. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
50. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
51. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
52. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
53. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
54. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
55. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
56. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
57. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
58. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
59. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
60. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
61. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
62. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Morse v. Republican Party of Va. 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992); Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491(1992); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978); Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975); Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24 (1974); O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S.752 (1973; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
63. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
64. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
65. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
66. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
67. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
68. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
69. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
70. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
71. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
72. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
73. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
74. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
75. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
76. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
77. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
78. See, e.g., Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997); United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celbrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431(1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
79. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
80. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
81. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med.
82. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
83. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
84. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
85. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
86. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
87. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
88. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986); FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981); California Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981); First Nat's Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
89. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
90. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
91. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
92. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
93. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
94. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
95. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
96. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
97. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
98. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
99. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
100. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
101. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
102. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
103. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
104. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
105. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
106. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
107. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
108. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
109. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
110. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
111. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
112. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
113. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1983); Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U.S. 259 (1977); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971); Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105 (1967); Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
114. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
115. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
116. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
117. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
118. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
119. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
120. See, e.g., Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); Rosario v. Rockeffeler, 410 U.S. 752 (1973); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).
121. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
122. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
123. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
124. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
125. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
126. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
127. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
128. The Court has adopted an extremely narrow coception of the vote, viewing ity solely as a technique for deciding who wins an election, and ignoring its expressive function. Thus, in Burdick, the Court ruled that states could ban write-in voting, since a write-in candidate had almost no chance of winning. Similarly, in Timmons the Court ruled that it was a minimal intrusion on First Amendment values to require voters to vote for a preferred candidate on the ballot line of a political party whose platform they opposed. For a broader view, see Adam Winkler, Expressive Voting, 68 N.Y.U. L. REV. 330 (1993). See also ALEXANDER BICKEL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS 59-61 (1978); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, POLITICAL FREEDOM: THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE PEOPLE 39-40 (1960).
129. The Court has adopted an extremely narrow coception of the vote, viewing ity solely as a technique for deciding who wins an election, and ignoring its expressive function. Thus, in Burdick, the Court ruled that states could ban write-in voting, since a write-in candidate had almost no chance of winning. Similarly, in Timmons the Court ruled that it was a minimal intrusion on First Amendment values to require voters to vote for a preferred candidate on the ballot line of a political party whose platform they opposed. For a broader view, see Adam Winkler, Expressive Voting, 68 N.Y.U. L. REV. 330 (1993). See also ALEXANDER BICKEL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS 59-61 (1978); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, POLITICAL FREEDOM: THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE PEOPLE 39-40 (1960).
130. The Court has adopted an extremely narrow coception of the vote, viewing ity solely as a technique for deciding who wins an election, and ignoring its expressive function. Thus, in Burdick, the Court ruled that states could ban write-in voting, since a write-in candidate had almost no chance of winning. Similarly, in Timmons the Court ruled that it was a minimal intrusion on First Amendment values to require voters to vote for a preferred candidate on the ballot line of a political party whose platform they opposed. For a broader view, see Adam Winkler, Expressive Voting, 68 N.Y.U. L. REV. 330 (1993). See also ALEXANDER BICKEL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS 59-61 (1978); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, POLITICAL FREEDOM: THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE PEOPLE 39-40 (1960).
131. The potential legal issues raised by low voter turnout are raised with characteristic thoughtfulness in SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF ET AL., THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY: LEAGAL STRUCTURES OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS 107-115 (1998). The casebook is an invaluable source of information and insight into the law of democracy.
132. Despite more than thirty years of litigation, the Supreme Court has not envolved a predictable test for evaluatingrestrictions on ballot access. See Rockefeller v. Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1203 1996).
133. Despite more than thirty years of litigation, the Supreme Court has not envolved a predictable test for evaluatingrestrictions on ballot access. See Rockefeller v. Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1203 1996).
134. Despite more than thirty years of litigation, the Supreme Court has not envolved a predictable test for evaluatingrestrictions on ballot access. See Rockefeller v. Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1203 1996).
135. We occasionally overlook the fact that the existing regulatory structure governing the financing of federal elections is the result of the Court's partial invalidation in Buckley of the expenditure control aspects of Congress's handiwork, coupled with the upholding of the contribution limits. Whether Congress would ever have chosen the resulting regulatory scheme is an open question. See FRANK J. SORAUF, INSIDE CAMPAIGN FINANCE: MYTHS & REALITIES 238 (1992).
136. The apogee of one-person one vote enforcement is Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). It invalidated population deviations in a Congressional reapportionment that were lower than the predictable error in the census.
137. Despite the fact that most of the country lives under a massive reciprocal political gerrymander by the Republican and Democratic parties that renders most elections entirely predictable, the Court's political gerrymandering jurisprudence does almost nothing to impede drawing lines to protect incumbents. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Court recognized a cause of action for vote dilution caused by extreme political gerrymandering, but set the standards so high that, in the years since Davis, only one successful political gerrymandering case has ever been brought. See Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992), remanded for reconsideration, Republican Party of N.C. v. Hunt, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996). In the racial reapportionment cases following Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), the Court explicitly recognized incumbent protection as a legitimate justification for gerrymandering.
138. Despite the fact that most of the country lives under a massive reciprocal political gerrymander by the Republican and Democratic parties that renders most elections entirely predictable, the Court's political gerrymandering jurisprudence does almost nothing to impede drawing lines to protect incumbents. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Court recognized a cause of action for vote dilution caused by extreme political gerrymandering, but set the standards so high that, in the years since Davis, only one successful political gerrymandering case has ever been brought. See Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992), remanded for reconsideration, Republican Party of N.C. v. Hunt, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996). In the racial reapportionment cases following Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), the Court explicitly recognized incumbent protection as a legitimate justification for gerrymandering.
139. Despite the fact that most of the country lives under a massive reciprocal political gerrymander by the Republican and Democratic parties that renders most elections entirely predictable, the Court's political gerrymandering jurisprudence does almost nothing to impede drawing lines to protect incumbents. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Court recognized a cause of action for vote dilution caused by extreme political gerrymandering, but set the standards so high that, in the years since Davis, only one successful political gerrymandering case has ever been brought. See Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992), remanded for reconsideration, Republican Party of N.C. v. Hunt, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996). In the racial reapportionment cases following Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), the Court explicitly recognized incumbent protection as a legitimate justification for gerrymandering.
140. Despite the fact that most of the country lives under a massive reciprocal political gerrymander by the Republican and Democratic parties that renders most elections entirely predictable, the Court's political gerrymandering jurisprudence does almost nothing to impede drawing lines to protect incumbents. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Court recognized a cause of action for vote dilution caused by extreme political gerrymandering, but set the standards so high that, in the years since Davis, only one successful political gerrymandering case has ever been brought. See Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992), remanded for reconsideration, Republican Party of N.C. v. Hunt, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996). In the racial reapportionment cases following Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), the Court explicitly recognized incumbent protection as a legitimate justification for gerrymandering.
141. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
142. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
143. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
144. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
145. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
146. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), struck down a ban on anonymous political speech designed to deter irresponsible falsehoods. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982), struck down a penalty for false campaign promises. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), invalidated a ban on election day editorials. Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron, 401 U.S. 295 (1971), and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971), applied ordinary New York Times v. Sullivan rules to allegations of electioneering slander. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), struck down a candidate right of reply statute.
147. See Burt Neuborne, The Supreme Court and Free Speech: Love and a Question, 42 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 789, 800-11 (1997). I argue that prevailing autonomy-based First Amendment doctrine authorizes restrictions on speech needed to permit "bounded institutions" to perform properly. Id. at 800. I then argue that the Court has recognized an election campaign as a quot;bounded institution," permitting contentneutral restrictions on speech if they are shown to be necessary to permit the institution to function properly. Id.
148. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 19.
149. Id. at 19 n. 18.
150. For discussion of the prisoners' dilemma, see DOUGLAS G. BAIRD ET AL., GAME THEORY AND THE LAW 33 (1994); WILLIAM POUNDSTONE, PRISONER'S DILEMMA 116-25 (1992); RUSSELL HARDIN, COLLECTIVE ACTION 2-3 (1982).
151. For discussion of the prisoners' dilemma, see DOUGLAS G. BAIRD ET AL., GAME THEORY AND THE LAW 33 (1994); WILLIAM POUNDSTONE, PRISONER'S DILEMMA 116-25 (1992); RUSSELL HARDIN, COLLECTIVE ACTION 2-3 (1982).
152. For discussion of the prisoners' dilemma, see DOUGLAS G. BAIRD ET AL., GAME THEORY AND THE LAW 33 (1994); WILLIAM POUNDSTONE, PRISONER'S DILEMMA 116-25 (1992); RUSSELL HARDIN, COLLECTIVE ACTION 2-3 (1982).
153. The actual spending limits before the Court in Buckley were absurdly low. Independent expenditures were limited to $1,000, or less than a quarter-page advertisement in the New York Times. Congressional campaigns were limited to $70,000. Senatorial campaigns were limited to twelve cents per voter. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 7, 39, 51, 54-55.
154. One cannot help but be reminded of decisions like Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), that exalt a theoretical autonomy that does not really exist.
155. The Holmes/Brandeis First Amendment opinions are relentlessly speaker-centered, with the interests of hearers trotted out occasionally as a rhetorical flourish. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The Holmes/Brandeis dissents form the core of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
156. The Holmes/Brandeis First Amendment opinions are relentlessly speaker-centered, with the interests of hearers trotted out occasionally as a rhetorical flourish. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The Holmes/Brandeis dissents form the core of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
157. The Holmes/Brandeis First Amendment opinions are relentlessly speaker-centered, with the interests of hearers trotted out occasionally as a rhetorical flourish. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The Holmes/Brandeis dissents form the core of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
158. The Holmes/Brandeis First Amendment opinions are relentlessly speaker-centered, with the interests of hearers trotted out occasionally as a rhetorical flourish. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The Holmes/Brandeis dissents form the core of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
159. The Holmes/Brandeis First Amendment opinions are relentlessly speaker-centered, with the interests of hearers trotted out occasionally as a rhetorical flourish. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The Holmes/Brandeis dissents form the core of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
160. Although the Court had recognized a hearer's interest in refusing to receive information in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the earliest recognition of an independent First Amendment right to receive information took place in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (invalidating regulations requiring addressees of "foreign political propaganda" to affirmatively request delivery), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (invalidating prison mail censorship as violative of non-prisoner recipient's rights to receive mail). Preoccupation with a hearer's right to receive useful information pervades the commercial speech doctrine. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
161. Although the Court had recognized a hearer's interest in refusing to receive information in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the earliest recognition of an independent First Amendment right to receive information took place in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (invalidating regulations requiring addressees of "foreign political propaganda" to affirmatively request delivery), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (invalidating prison mail censorship as violative of non-prisoner recipient's rights to receive mail). Preoccupation with a hearer's right to receive useful information pervades the commercial speech doctrine. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
162. Although the Court had recognized a hearer's interest in refusing to receive information in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the earliest recognition of an independent First Amendment right to receive information took place in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (invalidating regulations requiring addressees of "foreign political propaganda" to affirmatively request delivery), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (invalidating prison mail censorship as violative of non-prisoner recipient's rights to receive mail). Preoccupation with a hearer's right to receive useful information pervades the commercial speech doctrine. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
163. Although the Court had recognized a hearer's interest in refusing to receive information in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the earliest recognition of an independent First Amendment right to receive information took place in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (invalidating regulations requiring addressees of "foreign political propaganda" to affirmatively request delivery), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (invalidating prison mail censorship as violative of non-prisoner recipient's rights to receive mail). Preoccupation with a hearer's right to receive useful information pervades the commercial speech doctrine. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
164. See, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (rejecting effort to make newspaper conduit for views of others); Columbia Broad. Sys. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973) (refusing to force broadcasters to become conduits for political messages); Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (forbidding newspaper from acting as conduit for gender-based employment advertisements); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (requiring broadcasters to serve as conduits to ensure balanced coverage of public issues).
165. See, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (rejecting effort to make newspaper conduit for views of others); Columbia Broad. Sys. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973) (refusing to force broadcasters to become conduits for political messages); Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (forbidding newspaper from acting as conduit for gender-based employment advertisements); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (requiring broadcasters to serve as conduits to ensure balanced coverage of public issues).
166. See, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (rejecting effort to make newspaper conduit for views of others); Columbia Broad. Sys. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973) (refusing to force broadcasters to become conduits for political messages); Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (forbidding newspaper from acting as conduit for gender-based employment advertisements); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (requiring broadcasters to serve as conduits to ensure balanced coverage of public issues).
167. See, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (rejecting effort to make newspaper conduit for views of others); Columbia Broad. Sys. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973) (refusing to force broadcasters to become conduits for political messages); Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (forbidding newspaper from acting as conduit for gender-based employment advertisements); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (requiring broadcasters to serve as conduits to ensure balanced coverage of public issues).
168. Chaplinsky dealt with a setting in which the hearer was also the target of potentially harmful speech. Later cases dealt with settings where the target is not necessarily the hearer. See, e.g., N. Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutionalizing libel of public officials); Beuaharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (upholding group libel law). Whether Beauharnais survives Times v. Sullivan and Brandenburg v. Ohio is a matter of dispute. I have attempted to chart the process by which the speech universe exoanded from speaker to hearer to conduit to target in Burt Neuborne, The First Amendment and Government Regulation of Speech in the Capital Markets, 55 BROOK. L. REV. 5, 9-28 (1989).
169. Chaplinsky dealt with a setting in which the hearer was also the target of potentially harmful speech. Later cases dealt with settings where the target is not necessarily the hearer. See, e.g., N. Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutionalizing libel of public officials); Beuaharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (upholding group libel law). Whether Beauharnais survives Times v. Sullivan and Brandenburg v. Ohio is a matter of dispute. I have attempted to chart the process by which the speech universe exoanded from speaker to hearer to conduit to target in Burt Neuborne, The First Amendment and Government Regulation of Speech in the Capital Markets, 55 BROOK. L. REV. 5, 9-28 (1989).
170. Chaplinsky dealt with a setting in which the hearer was also the target of potentially harmful speech. Later cases dealt with settings where the target is not necessarily the hearer. See, e.g., N. Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutionalizing libel of public officials); Beuaharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (upholding group libel law). Whether Beauharnais survives Times v. Sullivan and Brandenburg v. Ohio is a matter of dispute. I have attempted to chart the process by which the speech universe exoanded from speaker to hearer to conduit to target in Burt Neuborne, The First Amendment and Government Regulation of Speech in the Capital Markets, 55 BROOK. L. REV. 5, 9-28 (1989).
171. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (invalidating ban on racist hate speech as overbroad and content-based).
172. The paradigm hate speech case arose out of efforts by Nazis to march through a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago in full Nazi drag. See National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 434 U.S. 1327 (1977). See also Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill. 1978); Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 373 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1978). Despite the appalling content of Nazi speech, and its real impact on survivors of the Holocaust residing in Skokie, the courts had little difficulty in finding the speech protected by the First Amendment. A similar fate awaited efforts to limit violent pornography as a form of hate speech. See American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
173. The paradigm hate speech case arose out of efforts by Nazis to march through a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago in full Nazi drag. See National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 434 U.S. 1327 (1977). See also Collin v. Smith, 447
174. The paradigm hate speech case arose out of efforts by Nazis to march through a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago in full Nazi drag. See National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 434 U.S. 1327 (1977). See also Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill. 1978); Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 373 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1978). Despite the appalling content of Nazi speech, and its real impact on survivors of the Holocaust residing in Skokie, the courts had little difficulty in finding the speech protected by the First Amendment. A similar fate awaited efforts to limit violent pornography as a form of hate speech. See American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
175. The paradigm hate speech case arose out of efforts by Nazis to march through a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago in full Nazi drag. See National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 434 U.S. 1327 (1977). See also Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill. 1978); Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 373 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1978). Despite the appalling content of Nazi speech, and its real impact on survivors of the Holocaust residing in Skokie, the courts had little difficulty in finding the speech protected by the First Amendment. A similar fate awaited efforts to limit violent pornography as a form of hate speech. See American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
176. The fighting words doctrine flows from Chaplinsky. Efforts to expand the doctrine from face to face insults likely to provoke a violent response to a general ban on offensive speech have failed. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
177. The fighting words doctrine flows from Chaplinsky. Efforts to expand the doctrine from face to face insults likely to provoke a violent response to a general ban on offensive speech have failed. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
178. See Arkansas Educ. Television v. Forbes, 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998); Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996); Turner Broad. Sys. Co. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
179. See Arkansas Educ. Television v. Forbes, 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998); Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996); Turner Broad. Sys. Co. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
180. See Arkansas Educ. Television v. Forbes, 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998); Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996); Turner Broad. Sys. Co. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
181. 508 U.S. 384 (1993).
182. 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
183. The truth is that we have not progressed analytically much beyond the initial statement of the problem in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), and Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951), although the Court usually breaks ties in favor of speakers. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
184. The truth is that we have not progressed analytically much beyond the initial statement of the problem in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), and Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951), although the Court usually breaks ties in favor of speakers. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
185. The truth is that we have not progressed analytically much beyond the initial statement of the problem in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), and Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951), although the Court usually breaks ties in favor of speakers. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
186. The truth is that we have not progressed analytically much beyond the initial statement of the problem in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), and Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951), although the Court usually breaks ties in favor of speakers. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (expressive flag burning protected); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" sign worn on jacket protected).
187. 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
188. 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
189. 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
190. 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
191. 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
192. Compare Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (upholding limits on residential picketing), with Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (invalidating 300 foot buffer zone in connection with residential picketing).
193. Compare Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (upholding limits on residential picketing), with Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (invalidating 300 foot buffer zone in connection with residential picketing).
194. See Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). In Schenck, the District Court banned picketing and chanting in the immediate vicinity of an abortion center that had been the target of unlawful efforts to close it down, thus protecting the tranquility of persons inside the center, and banned unwanted face-to-face speech aimed at women approaching the center. The Supreme Court, following Madsen, upheld the buffer zone around the center, but it invalidated the ban on unwanted face-to-face speech as unnecessarily broad. See id. Whether a narrower ban on particularly aggressive unwanted face-to-face speech would be upheld is an open question. Note that Chaplinsky provides little guidance, because, in my experience, women approaching the center are not likely to react violently to unwanted speech about the immorality of abortion. I do not believe the law should reward a propensity to violence by silencing critics while condemning persons who suffer in peace to intense discomfort.
195. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 337, 389 (1992).
196. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (upholding sound mixing regulations in connection with music concerts in Central Park).
197. 512 U.S. 622 (1994). See also Turner Broad. Co. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).
198. 512 U.S. 622 (1994). See also Turner Broad. Co. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).
199. 512 U.S. at 656-57.
200. Id.
201. 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
202. 518 U.S. at 812. The Chief Justice joined Justice Thomas's separate opinion seeking to turn the clock back to a simpler day when the First Amendment universe was confined to speakers. Id. at 813-14. Independent programmers and hearers, argued Justice Thomas, do not have protectable First Amendment interests that can conflict with a cable owner's speaker interest. In effect Justice Thomas subordinated all possible conflicting First Amendment interests to the property rights of the broadcast owner. Id. at 812-38.
203. 518 U.S. at 734, 735-54, 759-60.
204. Id. at 742. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court upheld the right of the sponsors of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade to bar formal participation by a gay and lesbian group. In view of the inability to persuade the Court that the St. Patrick's Day Parade is a unique speech event triggering "gatekeeper" concerns, Hurley is consistent with the Court's reluctance to force speakers to be involuntary conduits for someone else's speech.
205. 518 U.S. at 813.
206. 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998).
207. 118 S. Ct. at 1643-44. The difficulty of deciding exactly who to protect in an electoral context is illustrated by comparing the Supreme Court's decision to protect the television station, with the Eighth Circuit's decision to protect the candidates. I believe that the best way to break the First Amendment tie in such a case is to ask which approach will best serve democracy. The Supreme Court was obviously concerned with enunciating flexible rules that would enable the candidate debate to play a significant role in the campaign, while protecting against egregious unfairness.
208. 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
209. 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
210. I have compared the organizational structure of the First Amendment with the principal rights bearing documents in our heritage beginning with the Magna Carta, continuing through the various English Bills of Rights, the Colonial Charters, the State Constitutions, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. While every idea in the First Amendment appears in the earlier documents, no document even approximates the rigorously logical order of the First Amendment. Madison's genius was organizational, not necessarily substantive. For a compilation of the rights-bearing documents in our political tradition, see BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE ROOTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1980).
211. Not surprisingly, the twin concerns of individual dignity and institutional efficiency underlying modern First Amendment theory mirror the inside out structure of the First Amendment. See generally ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR., FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, PART III (1941); THOMAS I. EMERSON, THE SYSTEM OF FREE EXPRESSION (1970); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT (1948); Edmond Cahn, The "Firstness" of the First Amendment, 65 YALE L.J. 464, 470-75 (specifically 473 n.30) (1956).
212. Not surprisingly, the twin concerns of individual dignity and institutional efficiency underlying modern First Amendment theory mirror the inside out structure of the First Amendment. See generally ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR., FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, PART III (1941); THOMAS I. EMERSON, THE SYSTEM OF FREE EXPRESSION (1970); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT (1948); Edmond Cahn, The "Firstness" of the First Amendment, 65 YALE L.J. 464, 470-75 (specifically 473 n.30) (1956).
213. Not surprisingly, the twin concerns of individual dignity and institutional efficiency underlying modern First Amendment theory mirror the inside out structure of the First Amendment. See generally ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR., FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, PART III (1941); THOMAS I. EMERSON, THE SYSTEM OF FREE EXPRESSION (1970); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT (1948); Edmond Cahn, The "Firstness" of the First Amendment, 65 YALE L.J. 464, 470-75 (specifically 473 n.30) (1956).
214. Not surprisingly, the twin concerns of individual dignity and institutional efficiency underlying modern First Amendment theory mirror the inside out structure of the First Amendment. See generally ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR., FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, PART III (1941); THOMAS I. EMERSON, THE SYSTEM OF FREE EXPRESSION (1970); ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT (1948); Edmond Cahn, The "Firstness" of the First Amendment, 65 YALE L.J. 464, 470-75 (specifically 473 n.30) (1956).
215. Recognizing the primacy of conscience, especially religious conscience, in the First Amendment provides yet another reason to reject the Court's unfortunate willingness, in Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), to apply permissive rational basis scrutiny to so-called "unintentional" interferences with religious conscience.
216. I have attempted a preliminary survey of the conflicting values at play in debates over campaign finance reform. See Neuborne, supra note 9.
217. We already recognize that massive spending by corporations can threaten the integrity of the democratic process. See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 658-60 (1990).