Sub-regulating elections

Supreme Court Review

Volumn 2013, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 135-182

  Nou, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930983085     PISSN: 00819557     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1086/676639     Document Type: Article

References (297)

1. See Richard A. Posner, Reflections on Judging 84-85 (Harvard, 2013)
2. See, for example, Heather K. Gerken, Lost in the Political Thicket: The Court, Election Law, and the Doctrinal Interregnum, 153 U Pa L Rev 503, 504 (2004);
3. Samuel Issacharoff, Gerrymandering and Political Cartels, 116 Harv L Rev 593 (2002);
4. Samuel Issacharoff and Richard H. Pildes, Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process, 50 Stan L Rev 643 (1998);
5. Peter H. Schuck, The Thickest Thicket: Partisan Gerrymandering and Judicial Regulation of Politics, 87 Colum L Rev 1325, 1330 (1987).
6. See, for example, Bruce E. Cain, Redistricting Commissions: A Better Political Buffer?, 121 Yale L J 1808, 1808 (2012);
7. Heather K. Gerken and Michael S. Kang, The Institutional Turn in Election Law Scholarship, in Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Heather K. Gerken, and Michael S. Kang, eds, Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process: Recurring Puzzles in American Democracy 17, 26 (Cambridge, 2011).
8. "New institutional" approaches, by and large, seek to "lessen the necessity of court intervention in politically sensitive election administration matters such as redistricting by harnessing politics to fix politics." Cain, 121 Yale L J at 1808 (cited in note 3).
9. See also Heather K. Gerken, Getting from Here to There in Redistricting Reform, 5 Duke J Const L & Pub Policy 1, 7-9 (2010);
10. Christopher S. Elmendorf, Representation Reinforcement through Advisory Commissions: The Case of Election Law, 80 NYU L Rev 1366, 1407-12 (2005);
11. Jeffrey C. Kubin, Note, The Case for Redistricting Commissions, 75 Tex L Rev 837, 849-50 (1997);
12. Note, A Federal Administrative Approach to Redistricting Reform, 121 Harv L Rev 1842, 1842 (2008).
13. Both fields, for example, search for structures and processes that can best facilitate that independence, whether through removal restrictions, salary protections, appointments qualifications, and so on. See Rachel E. Barkow, Insulating Agencies: Avoiding Capture through Institutional Design, 89 Tex L Rev 15 (2010).
14. See, e.g., Adam B. Cox, Designing Redistricting Institutions, 5 Election L J 412, 416-17 (2006)
15. Christopher S. Elmendorf, Election Commissions and Electoral Reform: An Overview, 5 Election L J 425, 443-44 (2006)
16. Heather K. Gerken, A Third Way for the Voting Rights Act: Section 5 and the Opt-In Approach, 106 Colum L Rev 708, 748 (2006)
17. Samuel Issacharoff, Beyond the Discrimination Model on Voting, 127 Harv L Rev 95, 121-23 (2013);
18. Richard H. Pildes, Voting Rights: The Next Generation, in Charles, Gerken, and Kang, eds, Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process at 17, 26 (cited in note 3);
19. Daniel P. Tokaji, The Future of Election Reform: From Rules to Institutions, 28 Yale L & Policy Rev 125, 135 (2009);
20. Saul Zipkin, Administering Election Law, 95 Marq L Rev 641 (2012);
21. Note, A Federal Administrative Approach to Redistricting Reform, 121 Harv L Rev 1842, 1843-44 (2008).
22. See Daniel P. Tokaji, The Birth and Rebirth of Election Administration, 6 Election L J 118, 122-23 (2007)
23. (reviewing Roy G. Saltman, The History and Politics of Voting Technology: In Quest of Integrity and Public Confidence (Palgrave, 2006)).
24. Arizona v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc., No 12-71, slip op (June 17, 2013), online at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71-7l48.pdf.
25. See Kobach v United States Election Assistance Commission, 13-cv-04095 (D Kan 2013).
26. See, for example, Daniel P. Tokaji, Teaching Election Administration, 56 SLU L J 675, 675 (2012)
27. David Schleicher, From Here All-the-Way-Down, or How to Write a Festschrift Piece, 48 Tulsa L Rev 401, 406 (2013)
28. See Skidmore v Swift & Co., 323 US 134, 140 (1944).
29. See Mary Whisner, Some Guidance About Agency Guidance, 105 L Library J 385, 392 (2013)
30. Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 16-166 (F) (2006).
31. 42 USC § 1973gg-2 (a) (2).
32. See National Mail Voter Registration Form, ∗3-20, online at http://www.eac.gov.
33. Letter from Executive Director Thomas Wilkey to Secretary of State Jan Brewer (Mar. 6, 2006).
34. 42 USC § 1973gg-4 (a) (1).
35. State Petitioners' Brief on the Merits, Arizona v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc., No 12-71, ∗20 (June 17, 2013).
36. Gonzalez v Arizona, 485 F3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir 2007);
37. Purcell v Gonzalez, 549 US 1 (2006) (per curiam).
38. Gonzalez, 549 US at 5-6.
39. 485 F3d at 1049-51.
40. 133 S Ct 476 (2012).
41. See Office of Representative Nancy Pelosi, Press Release, Daschle, Pelosi Announce Nominations to Election Assistance Commission (May 28, 2003), online at http://pelosi.house.gov/sites/pelosi.house.gov/files/pressarchives/releases/prDachlePelosiEAC052803.htm
42. (announcing nominations of Ray Martinez and Gracia Hillman by Democratic House and Senate leaders); US Election Assistance Commission, Certification, In the Matter of Arizona Request for Information (July 31, 2006), available online at http://archives.eac.gov/voter/docs/az-tally-vote.pdf/attachment-download/file;
43. Joint Appendix, Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 2012 WL 6198263, ∗222-42 (2012).
44. 42 USC § 15328.
45. Joint Appendix, 2012 WL 6198263 at 229-39 (cited in note 26).
46. Intertribal Council, No 12-71, slip op at 16-17.
47. Oregon v Mitchell, 400 US 112 (1970).
48. Intertribal Council, No 12-71, slip op at 15 n 9.
49. See Daniel P. Tokaji, Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws, 44 Ind L Rev 113, 117 (2010)
50. 2 USC § 431
51. In Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976)
52. Buckley, 424 US at 13.
53. Voting Rights Act, 42 USC § 1973 (2011).
54. See National Voter Registration Act, 42 USC §§ 1973gg-1973gg-10 (2006);
55. Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 USC § 15301 et seq (2002).
56. See Elmendorf, 5 Election L J at 425, 429 (cited in note 6);
57. Tokaji, 44 Ind L Rev at 122-23 (cited in note 41);
58. see also Election Commission of India, About ECI, online at http://eci.nic.in/eci-main1/the-setup. aspx.
59. See Jean-Pierre Kingsley, The Administration of Canada's Independent, Non-Partisan Approach, 3 Election L J 406 (2004).
60. See Elmendorf, 5 Election L J at 425, 426-27
61. see also Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, Our Electoral Exceptionalism, 80 U Chi L Rev 769, 780-86 (2013)
62. See Barkow, 89 Tex L Rev at 15, 38-39 (cited in note 5).
63. See Maurice C. Sheppard, The Federal Election Commission: Policy, Politics, and Administration, 61-63 (UPA, 2007).
64. See 42 USC § 15323 (a)
65. see also Tokaji, 28 Yale L & Policy Rev at 134
66. See 42 USC § 15323 (b) (1).
67. See 42 USC § 15323 (c)
68. See 2 USC § 437c (a) (1)
69. 2 USC § 437c (a) (2) (A) (2006)
70. See Bradley A. Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting, A Toothless Anaconda: Innovation, Impotence and Overenforcement at the Federal Election Commission, 1 Election L J 145, 158 n 97 (2002).
71. Interestingly, lower courts have implied for-cause protection for the FEC. See FEC v NRA Political Victory Fund, 6 F3d 821, 826 (DC Cir 1993).
72. See 2 USC § 437c (a) (5)
73. 42 USC § 15324.
74. See Election Assistance Commission, Board of Advisors, online at http://www.eac.gov/about-the-eac/board-of-advisors.aspx.
75. See 42 USC §§ 15322;
76. Vassia Gueorguieva, Election Administration Bodies and Implementation Tools, 13 Georgetown Pub Policy Rev 95, 103 (2008);
77. Ray Martinez III, Is the Election Assistance Commission Worth Keeping?, 12 Election L J 190, 191 (2013)
78. 42 USC § 15329
79. See 42 USC § 1973gg-7 (a).
80. 42 USC § 15511.
81. See 2 USC 437c (f);
82. Federal Election Commission, FEC Offices, online at http://www.fec.gov/about/offices/offices.shtml;
83. Sheppard, The Federal Election Commission at 63-64 (cited in note 49).
84. See Gueorguieva, 13 Georgetown Pub Policy Rev at 96-97 (cited in note 57); Shep-pard, The Federal Election Commission at 60 (cited in note 49).
85. 2 USC § 437d (a) (8).
86. See Gueorguieva, 13 Georgetown Pub Policy Rev at 100 (cited in note 57).
87. 2 USC § 437f.
88. See 2 USC § 437c (a) (2) (c)
89. see also R. Sam Garrett, Deadlocked Votes among Members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC): Overview and Potential Considerations for Congress 1 (Congressional Research Service, 2009), online at http://www.bradblog.com/wp-content/uploads/CRS-FEC-Deadlocks.pdf.
90. See Rules of Procedure of the Federal Election Commission Pursuant to 2 USC § 437 (c) (e), online at http://www.fec.gov/directives/directive-10.pdf.
91. See 42 USC § 15328
92. See, e.g., Election Assistance Commission, Work Continues at the EAC, online at http://www.eac.gov/blogs/work-continues-at-the-eac (Dec. 14, 2011)
93. 19 USC § 1330 (d) (5).
94. See 19 USC § 1330 (a), (c) (2006)
95. 42 USC § 1975 (b) (2006)
96. See 42 USC § 1975a.
97. Marian Wang, As Political Groups Push Envelope, FEC Gridlock Gives "De Facto Green Light" (ProPublica, Nov. 7, 2011), online at http://www.propublica.org/article/as-political-donors-push-envelope-fec-gridlock-gives-de-facto-green-light/single ("Ultimately, the FEC is set up in such a way that when the commissioners deadlock, one side comes away with a de-facto win-the side seeking to preserve the status quo.").
98. See also Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, HR Rep No 94-917, 94th Cong, 2d Sess 3 (1976).
99. See Garrett, Deadlocked Votes at 4 (cited in note 65)
100. See Tokaji, 28 Yale L & Policy Rev at 135 (cited in note 6).
101. See also Gueorguieva, 13 Georgetown Pub Policy Rev at 101-02 (cited in note 57);
102. Press Release, FEC Deadlocks on Attempted Evasion of Disclosure Laws (Campaign Legal Center, June 14, 2012), online at http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?optionpcom-content&view-article& idp1766:june-14-2012-fec-deadlocks-on-attempted-evasion-of-disclosure-laws&catidp 63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemidp61.
103. See Shelby County v Holder, 133 S Ct 2612 (2013).
104. 42 USC § 1973c (West, 2011).
105. See Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Oversight and Review Division, A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division 13 (March 2013), online at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2013/s1303.pdf
106. See Revisions of the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 75 Fed Reg 33205 (proposed June 11, 2010)
107. (to be codified at 29 CFR pts 0 and 51)
108. citing 5 USC § 301.
109. 42 USC § 1973c;
110. 28 CFR § 51. 52.
111. 42 USC § 1973c.
112. See United States v Mead Corp., 533 US 218, 232 (denying Chevron deference to tariff rulings on the grounds that they were not "the legislative type of activity that would naturally bind more than the parties to the ruling").
113. See also J. Morgan Kousser, The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-2007, 86 Tex L Rev 667, 683 (2008)
114. Pub L No 89-110, 79 Stat 437
115. (codified as amended at 42 USC §§ 1973-1973bb-1 (2006)).
116. 42 USC §§ 1973-1973bb-1.
117. 42 USC § 1973.
118. 42 USC § 1973 (b).
119. 42 USC § 1973aa-1a (a).
120. See 28 CFR 55, online at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec-203/28CFRPart55.pdf.
121. 42 USC § 1973aa-6.
122. See Department of Justice, Review of the Voting Section at 9 (cited in note 76).
123. See Exec Order No 12, 642, 53 Fed Reg 21, 975 (June 8, 1988)
124. Federal Voting Assistance Program, About FVAP, online at http://www.fvap. gov/info/about.
125. 42 USC §§ 1973ff-1973ff-6 (2006)
126. Pub L No 111-84, §§ 578-79, 123 Stat 2190, 2321-22 (2009)
127. (codified as amended at 42 USC § 1973ff-1 (a) (7) - (8) (2006 & Supp V 2012)).
128. See Department of Defense, Federal Voting Assistance Program, Instruction No 1000.04 (Sept 13, 2012), online at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100004p. pdf.
129. 531 US 98 (2000).
130. See Richard H. Pildes, Democracy and Disorder, 68 U Chi L Rev 695, 715 (2001)
131. Statement of EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio, Joint Appendix, 2012 WL 6198263 at 225 ("I was also very concerned that with the August 14, 2006, voter registration deadline for the Arizona primary election fast approaching, that time was of the essence on this issue.").
132. See Adam M. Samaha, On Law's Tiebreakers, 77 U Chi L Rev 1661, 1684-85 (2010) (discussing example).
133. See Christopher Rowland, Deadlock by Design Hobbles Election Agency, Boston Globe (July 7, 2013), online at http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/06/america-campaign-finance-watchdog-rendered-nearly-toothless-its-own-appointed-commission-ers/44zZoJwnzEHyzxTByNL2QP/story.html hare-nav
134. Roiled in Partisan Deadlock, Federal Election Commission Is Failing (Public Citizen, 2013), online at http://www.citizen.org/documents/fec-deadlock-statement-and-chart-january-2013.pdf
135. Garrett, Deadlocked Votes at 4-6
136. See, for example, Bernie Becker, Election Commission Decisions Deadlocking on Party Lines, NY Times A16 (Sept 27, 2009);
137. Marian Wang, FEC Deadlocks (Again) on Guidance for Big-Money Super PACs (ProPublica, Dec. 2, 2011), online at http://www.propublica.org/article/deadlocks-again-on-guidance-for-big-money-super-pacs;
138. Kathleen Ronayne, Federal Election Commission Deadlocks in Discussions about New Disclosure Rules for Political Advertisements, Open Secrets Blog (June 16, 2011), online at http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/federal-election-commission-deadlocks.html;
139. Kenneth P. Doyle, Bauerly: FEC to Vote Again on Launch of Rulemaking to Adjust to Citizens United, Daily Rep Exec (BNA) No 11, at A-13 (June 10, 2011)
140. See Trevor Potter, How the FEC Can Stop the Tidal Wave of Secret Political Cash, Wash Post (Nov. 16, 2012), online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-fec-can-stop-the-tidal-wave-of-secret-political-cash/2012/11/16/966c48cc-2dae-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a-story.html.
141. See Federal Election Commission, Minutes of an Open Meeting of the Federal Election Commission 4-5 (Jan 20, 2011), online at http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2011/approved2011-06.pdf.
142. See also Federal Election Commission, Minutes of an Open Meeting of the Federal Election Commission 3-4 (June 15, 2011), available online at http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2011/ap-proved2011-39.pdf.
143. See Cass R. Sunstein and Thomas J. Miles, Depoliticizing Administrative Law, 58 Duke L J 2193, 2193-94 (2009).
144. See, for example, George Hyman Const. Co. V Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n., 582 F2d 834, 837 (4th Cir 1978).
145. See, for example, Cox Bros., Inc. V Secretary of Labor, 574 F2d 465, 467 (9th Cir 1978).
146. See also Shaw Construction, Inc. V Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 534 F2d 1183, 1185-86 (5th Cir 1976).
147. See Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) v Federal Election Commission, 831 F2d 1131 (DC Cir 1987)
148. (citing 2 USC § 437g (a) (8) (A)).
149. 2 USC § 437g (a) (1) - (2).
150. 2 USC § 437g (a).
151. DCCC, 831 F2d at 1132.
152. See Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) v Federal Election Commission, 831 F2d 1131 (DC Cir 1987).
153. See also Common Cause v Federal Election Commission, 842 F2d 436 (DC Cir 1988)
154. See Common Cause, 842 F2d at 449.
155. For related discussion, see Adrian Vermeule, The Constitution of Risk 165-85 (Cambridge, 2013).
156. See Bob Bauer, The Federal Election Commission and Its Choice of a General Counsel, More Soft Money Hard Law (June 7, 2013), at http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/fec-general-counsel
157. See In re Sealed Case, 223 F3d 775, 780 (DC Cir 2000);
158. Federal Election Commission v National Republican Senatorial Committee, 966 F2d 1471 (DC Cir 1992)
159. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. V Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837, 842 (1984).
160. See National Republican Senatorial Committee, 966 F2d at 1476.
161. See In re Sealed Case, 223 F3d at 780.
162. See United States v Mead Corporation, 533 US 218, 226-27 (2001).
163. In re Sealed Case, 223 F3d at 780-81
164. citing Federal Election Commission v Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 US 27, 37 (1981).
165. See Mead Corporation, 533 US at 226-27.
166. See National Republican Senatorial Committee, 966 F2d at 1476.
167. See Common Cause, 842 F2d at 449 n 32
168. See Skidmore v Swift & Co., 323 US 134 (1944).
169. See, for example, Richard W. Murphy, Judicial Deference, Agency Commitment, and Force of Law, 66 Ohio St L J 1013, 1015 (2005)
170. See Kristen E. Hickman and Matthew D. Krueger, In Search of the Modern Skidmore Standard, 107 Colum L Rev 1235, 1275 (2007)
171. William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Lauren E. Baer, The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan, 96 Georgetown L J 1083, 1099 table 1 (2008)
172. See Hickman and Krueger, 107 Colum L Rev at 1271
173. See Ronald N. Johnson and Gary D. Libecap, The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy: The Economics and Politics of Institutional Change 7 (Chicago, 1994).
174. The General Schedule is the basic pay schedule for federal government employees. See 5 USC § 5332.
175. United States v National Treasury Employees Union, 513 US 454, 472, 478 (1995).
176. See, for example, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 USC App 2 §§ 1-16;
177. Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552 (b).
178. See, for example, American Farm Bureau Federation v EPA, 559 F3d 512, 521 (DC Cir 2009)
179. Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v EPA, 604 F3d 613, 619 (DC Cir 2010)
180. See Peter L. Strauss, Publication Rules in the Rulemaking Spectrum: Assuring Proper Respect for an Essential Element, 53 Admin L Rev 803, 810 (2001).
181. See Richard H. Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2014 Supreme Court Review (in this volume).
182. See 121 S Ct at 2187.
183. See David J. Barron and Elena Kagan, Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine, 2001 Supreme Court Review 201, 204 (2001).
184. See Hickman and Krueger, 107 Colum L Rev at 1249 (cited in note 121).
185. See, for example, De La Mota v United. States Department of Education, 412 F3d 71, 80 (2nd Cir 2005)
186. See Adam B. Cox and Thomas J. Miles, Judging the Voting Rights Act, 108 Colum L Rev 1, 21-29 (2008)
187. Randall D. Lloyd, Separating Partisanship from Party in Judicial Research: Reapportionment in the U. S. District Courts, 89 Am Pol Sci Rev 413, 417-18 (1995)
188. See also Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, The Behavior of Federal Judges 8 (Harvard, 2013)
189. See Daniel P. Tokaji, Leave It to the Lower Courts: On Judicial Intervention in Election Administration, 68 Ohio St L J 1065, 1067 (2007).
190. Pub L No 95-454, 92 Stat 1111.
191. See Johnson and Libecap, The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy (cited in note 123).
192. Neal Kumar Katyal, Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch from Within, 115 Yale L J 2314, 2331-32 (2006).
193. See Robert S. Montjoy and Douglas M. Chapin, The U. S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?, 35 Publius 617, 620 (2005).
194. See, for example, Roy Saltman, Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying (National Bureau of Standards Project Report, 1975);
195. Richard G. Smolka and W. Edward Weems, Jr., A Study of Election Difficulties in Representative American Jurisdictions (Office of Federal Elections, 1973).
196. 42 USC § 1973gg-7 (a) (1).
197. See State Petitioners' Brief on the Merits, Intertribal Council, No 12-71, at ∗28, 44-46.
198. Gonzalez, 624 F3d at 1208 (Kozinski concurring).
199. Id, citing Wyeth v Levine, 555 US 555 (2009).
200. Wyeth, 555 US at 577 (citation omitted).
201. See Gonzalez, 677 F3d at 403 n 29.
202. Among other things, the director spoke to the statutory provision's purpose-"set-[ting] the proof required to demonstrate voter qualification"- and the EAC's experience and delegated responsibility to create and administer the federal voter registration form. See Joint Appendix, Arizona v Intertribal Council of Arizona, 2012 WL 6198263, ∗184-86 (2012).
203. See Election Assistance Commission, wThe Roles and Responsibilities of the Commissioners and Executive Director of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission 6, online at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow-staging/Page/348. PDF.
204. 42 USC § 15324 (a) (3).
205. See Election Assistance Commission, The Roles and Responsibilities of the Commissioners and Executive Director of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission 4-5, online at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow-staging/Page/348. PDF.
206. For details about the experience of the executive director in this case, see United States Election Assistance Commission, Thomas R. Wilkey, online at http://www.eac.gov/about-the-eac/thomas-r-wilkey.aspx.
207. Christopher S. Elmendorf, Refining the Democracy Canon, 95 Cornell L Rev 1097 (2010).
208. See Arpit K. Garg, A Deference Theory of Section Five (draft as of April 1, 2012), online at http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-idp2209636.
209. See Administration of Voting Rights Act of 1965, 36 Fed Reg 9781 (May 28, 1971).
210. See Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 36 Fed Reg 18186 (Sept 10, 1971)
211. (codified at 28 CFR pt 51 (1972));
212. Kousser, 86 Tex L Rev at 667, 683
213. See generally Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Proposed Revision of Procedures, 50 Fed Reg 19, 122 (proposed May 6, 1985)
214. (to be codified at 28 CFR pt 51);
215. Revision of Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 Fed Reg 486-01 (Jan 6, 1987)
216. (codified at 28 CFR § 51.55).
217. See also Steven F. Lawson, In Pursuit of Power: Southern Blacks and Electoral Politics, 1965-1982 at 158-90 (Columbia, 1985);
218. Kousser, 86 Tex L Rev at 716
219. Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Proposed Revision of Procedures, 50 Fed Reg 19, 122, 19, 131 (proposed May 6, 1985)
220. (to be codified at 28 CFR pt 51).
221. Revision of Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 Fed Reg 486
222. (codified at 28 CFR § 51.55).
223. See Kousser, 86 Tex L Rev at 718 (cited in note 80).
224. See, for example, Revisions of the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 75 Fed Reg 33205 (proposed June 11, 2010)
225. (to be codified at 29 CFR pts 0 and 51).
226. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v Holder, 557 US 193 (2009).
227. See Revision of Voting Rights Procedures, 76 Fed Reg 21, 239 (April 15, 2011);
228. Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; Notice, 76 Fed Reg 7470 (Feb. 9, 2011).
229. See Dan Eggen, Staff Opinions Banned in Voting Rights Cases, Wash Post A3 (Dec. 10, 2005);
230. Edward M. Kennedy, Restoring the Civil Rights Division, 2 Harv L & Policy Rev 211, 218-19 (2008);
231. Daniel P. Tokaji, If It's Broke, Fix It: Improving Voting Rights Act Preclearance, 49 Howard L J 785, 799 (2006)
232. Thomas Perez, U. S. Department of Justice's Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, 64 Rutgers L Rev 939, 941 (2012)
233. See Eggen, Staff Opinions Banned in Voting Rights Cases, Wash Post at A3 (cited in note 166);
234. Mark Posner, Evidence of Political Manipulation at the Justice Department: How Tom DeLay's Redistricting Plan Avoided Voting Rights Act Disapproval, FindLaw.com (Dec. 6, 2005), online at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051206-posner.html.
235. See J. Christian Adams, Internal DOJ Documents Argued for SC Voter ID Approval⋯ but Obama Appointees Overruled, PJ Media (Sept 11, 2012), online at http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/09/11/doj-documents-argued-for-sc-voter-id-approval (President Obama's political appointees in the DOJ made the decision to object to preclearance of the South Carolina voter ID law over the recommendation of career DOJ lawyers and supervisors).
236. See Perez, 64 Rutgers L Rev at 940-41
237. See Abbott Labs v Gardner, 387 US 136, 141 (1967)
238. An Act to Regulate and Improve the Civil Service of the United States, Ch 27, 22 Stat 403 (1883);
239. 5 USC §§ 2301-05 (2000);
240. 5 USC §§ 1201-09 (2000).
241. See 5 USC §§ 1501-08 (2012).
242. See, for example, Pub L No 95-454, 92 Stat 1111.
243. See generally David E. Lewis, The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance (2008).
244. See Robert S. Montjoy, An Ecological Approach to Election Reform, 8 Election L J 59, 62 (2009)
245. Adrian Vermeule, Conventions of Agency Independence, 113 Colum L Rev 1163, 1212-13 (2013).
246. See Ryan C. Black and Ryan J. Owens, The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions 136 (2012) (observing that the influence of the Solicitor General's Office on the Supreme Court likely comes from the office's "objectivity, professionalism, and independence"). This view, however, is subject to some debate.
247. See Margaret H. Lemos, The Solicitor General as Mediator Between Court and Agency, 2009 Mich St L Rev 185, 187-92 (summarizing the debate).
248. See Cornelia T. L. Pillard, The Unfulfilled Promise of the Constitution in Executive Hands, 103 Mich L Rev 676, 725-26 (2005).
249. Jody Freeman and Adrian Vermeule, Massachusetts v EPA: From Politics to Expertise, 2007 Supreme Court Review 51, 61.
250. See 2 USC 437c (f);
251. 42 USC 15324 (a) (3).
252. See, for example, Thomas J. Kassin and Brian M. W. Cunningham, Grievance Procedures: The Carrier's Perspective, Am L Institute (Oct. 11-13, 2012) (discussing selection procedures for arbitrators when boards deadlock).
253. See 42 USC 15324 (a) (3).
254. See Kobach v The United States Election Assistance Commission, 13-cv-04095 (D Kan 2013).
255. Election Assistance Commission, Memorandum of Decision Concerning State Requests to Include Additional Proof of Citizenship Instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form 14-20 (Jan 17, 2014), online at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/20140117 %20EAC%20Final%20Decision%20on%20Proof%20of%20Citizenship%20Requests%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
256. See Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Assistance Commission Nomination Business Meeting, online at http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pp CommitteeHearings%26ContentRecord-idpcebb0cf6-c060-43b3-a600-ea6eaa00693c% 26ContentType-idp14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed%26Group-idp1983a2a8-4fc3-4062-a50e-7997351c154b%26MonthDisplayp2%26YearDisplayp2014.
257. See Richard E. Levy and Robert L. Glicksman, Agency-Specific Precedents, 89 Tex L Rev 499, 499-500 (2011)
258. Jerry L. Mashaw, Administration and "The Democracy": Administrative Law from Jackson to Lincoln, 1829-1861, 117 Yale L J 1568, 1688 (2008)
259. Levy and Glicksman, 89 Tex L Rev at 500 (cited in note 184).
260. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. V Volpe, 401 US 402, 416 (1971);
261. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 US 29, 59 (1983).
262. Levy and Glicksman, 89 Tex L Rev at 529-34 (cited in note 184).
263. See John G. Roberts, Jr., What Makes the D. C. Circuit Different? A Historical View, 92 Va L Rev 375, 376-77, 388-89 (2006).
264. See Frederick Schauer and Richard H. Pildes, Electoral Exceptionalism and the First Amendment, 77 Tex L Rev 1803, 1806 (1999)
265. See also Richard H. Pildes, Elections as a Distinct Sphere Under the First Amendment, in M. Youn, ed, Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United 19, 19 (Century Foundation, 2011)
266. Geoffrey R. Stone, "Electoral Exceptionalism" and the First Amendment: A Road Paved with Good Intentions, 35 NYU Rev L & Soc Change 665, 667 (2011).
267. Heather K. Gerken, Election Law Exceptionalism? A Bird's Eye View of the Symposium, 82 BU L Rev 737, 740 (2002)
268. citing Easley v Cromartie, 532 US 234, 241 (2001)
269. Miller v Johnson, 515 US 900, 915-16 (1995)
270. See Baker v Carr, 369 US 186 (1962);
271. Pamela S. Karlan and Daryl J. Levinson, Why Voting Is Different, 84 Cal L Rev 1201, 1218 (1996).
272. Karlan and Levinson, 84 Cal L Rev at 1201 (cited in note 193).
273. See Richard L. Hasen, The Democracy Canon, 62 Stan L Rev 69, 73, 92, 106 (2009).
274. See also Elmendorf, 95 Cornell L Rev at 1051 (cited in note 155).
275. See Hasen, 62 Stan L Rev at 77 (cited in note 196).
276. See Whitman v American Trucking Associations, 531 US 457, 472 (2001)
277. citing J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. V United States, 276 US 394, 409 (1928).
278. See Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv L Rev 2245, 2328 (2001).
279. See Zipkin, 95 Marq L Rev at 692 (cited in note 6).
280. See Issacharoff and Pildes, 50 Stan L Rev 643 (cited in note 2).
281. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association v State Farm, 463 US 29, 43 (1983)
282. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. V United States, 371 US 156, 168 (1962)).
283. See Heather K. Gerken, The Invisible Election: Making Policy in a World without Data, 35 Ohio N U L Rev 1013, 1024 (2009)
284. Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton, 2009).
285. See, for example, Issacharoff, 127 Harv L Rev at 121-23 (cited in note 6);
286. Bruce Cain and Daniel P. Tokaji, Promoting Equal Participation: A Voting Rights Act for the 21st Century, Election L Blog (June 23, 2009), online at http://electionlawblog.org/archives/013914.html
287. See also Spencer Overton, How to Update the Voting Rights Act, Huffington Post (June 25, 2013), online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-overton/how-to-update-the-voting-b-3497350.html (proposing disclosure measures as means to modernize the VRA).
288. See S. Cooper Hawley, Comment, Applying Risk Regulation Principles to New Policy Domains: A Case Study on Voter Identification Laws, 48 Wake Forest L Rev 515 (2013).
289. See Nathaniel Persily, In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Gerrymanders, 116 Harv L Rev 649, 674 (2002)
290. See Elmendorf, 95 Cornell L Rev at 1065
291. Compare Issacharoff, 116 Harv L Rev at 593 (cited in note 2)
292. with Persily, 116 Harv L Rev at 649 (cited in note 207).
293. See FCC v Fox, 556 US 502, 547 (2009).
294. See also Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference, 58 Admin L Rev 429 (2006);
295. Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down, Again: Independent Agencies, Chevron Deference, and Fox, 62 Admin L Rev 433 (2010).
296. See Pildes, Voting Rights: The Next Generation at 17, 18 (cited in note 6).
297. See Exec Order 13639, Establishment of the Presidential Commission of Election Administration, 78 Fed Reg 19979 (March 28, 2013), online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-election-administr.