Election Law

The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (University Casebook Series)

Average customer rating:

A tour de force

The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (University Casebook Series)
Samuel Issacharoff , Pamela S. Karlan , and Richard H. Pildes
Manufacturer: Foundation Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process 2006 Supplement (University Casebook)
Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy, 3rd Ed. (American Casebook Series and Other Coursebooks)
Election Law: Cases And Materials
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker V. Carr to Bush V. Gore

ASIN: 1587784602

Book Description

Offers a systematic exploration of the legal construction of American democracy. The book brings together a cluster of issues in law regulating the design of democratic institution. Employing historical, comparative, theoretical and doctrinal methods, the book explores foundational questions in the theory and practice of democracy.

Customer Reviews:

A tour de force.......1999-11-23

This is a tour de force on one of the most important yet most neglected areas of the law. I took a course from this book, and it was one of the best experiences I had in law school.

Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate

Average customer rating:

CORAGE
Principles still matter
A Common Denominator for Political Debate

Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate
Ronald Dworkin
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Democracy | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Justice in Robes
Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy
Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It)
Does American Democracy Still Work? (The Future of American Democracy Series)
Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Inalienable Rights)

ASIN: 0691126534

Book Description

Politics in America are polarized and trivialized, perhaps as never before. In Congress, the media, and academic debate, opponents from right and left, the red and the blue, struggle against one another as if politics were contact sports played to the shouts of cheerleaders. The result, Ronald Dworkin writes, is a deeply depressing political culture, as ill equipped for the perennial challenge of achieving social justice as for the emerging threats of terrorism. Yet this need not be. Dworkin, one the world's leading legal and political philosophers, identifies and defends core principles of personal and political morality that all citizens can share. He shows that recognizing such shared principles can make substantial political argument possible and help replace contempt with mutual respect. Only then can the full promise of democracy be realized in America and elsewhere.

Dworkin lays out two core principles that citizens should share: first, that each human life is intrinsically and equally valuable and, second, that each person has an inalienable personal responsibility for identifying and realizing value in his or her own life. He then shows what fidelity to these principles would mean for human rights, the place of religion in public life, economic justice, and the character and value of democracy. Dworkin argues that liberal conclusions flow most naturally from these principles. Properly understood, they collide with the ambitions of religious conservatives, contemporary American tax and social policy, and much of the War on Terror. But his more basic aim is to convince Americans of all political stripes--as well as citizens of other nations with similar cultures--that they can and must defend their own convictions through their own interpretations of these shared values.

Customer Reviews:

CORAGE.......2007-01-16

All americans should read this book. Ronald Dworkin has the corage to say the truth about the President Bush. And the truth is: YOU DID NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.

Principles still matter.......2007-01-04

Only Dworkin can get you back to understanding just how important principles are to decision making. "Principles Matter" (his best work in my opinion), and now he applies that same logic to preserving democracy in a world where we are continously befuddled by mass media and political spin bent on stirring our emotions. Anything to keep you "tuned in" and riled.

His arguements are solid, as always. Even if you prefer other "principles", you have to respect his approach and where his values weigh in on critical decision making. Dworkin has a way of revealing to the reader just what principles he or she are applying and sometimes we come away horrified at your own logic, which, of course, we thought was flawless. This book helps us take stock of own own opinions and how we can be more constructive towards preserving the democracy we all believe we cherish. Somewhere we need a divisor to utilize against the bombardment of mass communication and political belligerence. This is an excellent beginning.

A Common Denominator for Political Debate.......2006-12-08

Having weathered another election cycle of verbal and emotional combat between the polarized "red" and "blue" electorate, one begins to wonder if there is any common ground for constructive political debate in our contentious democracy. In his new book, legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin answers in the affirmative. He believes that there are certain principles on which both sides can agree. Problems, however, arise when these principles are applied to making concrete policy decisions.

Dworkin sets forth two principles of human dignity to which all parties can agree: 1) "that each human life is intrinsically and equally valuable," and 2) "that each person has an inalienable personal responsibility for identifying and realizing value in his or her life."

These principles are highly abstract and probably most parties would disagree on their application. The improvement in political debate here lies in the fact that debates can go back to a common starting point rather than having parties try to demonize and discredit each other as if they had mutually exclusive worldviews.

In the application of these principles to the policy on torture of enemy combatants, I found Dworkin's views recognizable because they coincide with my own. The use of torture is clearly at odds with any principle of human dignity and should be condemned. However, there are extreme and unique situations where torture may extract information that could save thousands of lives. How does one balance this against human dignity? Dworkin seems to suggest that we do a cost/benefit analysis - typical of legal thinkers. And I tend to agree. However, it is a problematic area and remains unresolved.

On the issue of capital punishment Dworkin tries to show two sides of the argument. Being a liberal, he is personally against capital punishment. On the other hand, he argues that death as punishment is not at odds with human dignity. A death penalty advocate would argue that there are issues of deterence and retribution that must be observed. Again this opens the debate to other sets of issues. Where does one draw the line on human dignity?

These two examples illustrate how difficult it is to achieve a substantive political debate as opposed to the disparagement and invective that we witness today. Dworkin's principles are hard to disagree with, and he clearly illustrates the problems we get into if we deviate too far from these principles. This book is an interesting and useful contribution to the need for civilizing our current political debate.

Average customer rating:

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook
Thomas E. Mann , Daniel R. Ortiz , Trevor Potter , Anthony, Thomas Mann, Daniel Ortiz, Corrado , and Trevor Potter
Manufacturer: Brookings Institution Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Reference | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Financial | English Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Business Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Financing the 2004 Election
The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Campaigning American Style)
Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform
The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform
Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms

ASIN: 0815700059

Product Description

This completely revised and expanded update of Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook provides the definitive exposition of federal campaign finance regulation. Written by four of the nation's most influential analysts on politics and money, The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook presents a thorough overview and analysis of campaign finance policy and practices, including the history of campaign finance regulation state of campaign finance law and the implementation of BCRA constitutional and regulatory issues in the campaign finance debate current practices and trends in the financing of federal elections public financing of presidential elections rules for campaigning on the internet alternative approaches to reform. The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook has also been integrated with the popular and useful Brookings website on campaign finance to provide a timely, interactive tool for policymakers, journalists, campaign professionals, and scholars. The Brookings Institution has been a leader in analyzing campaign finance and this important new book is an essential addition to that proud tradition.

Understanding the Presidency: 2004 Election Season Update (3rd Edition)

Average customer rating:

Understanding the Presidency: 2004 Election Season Update (3rd Edition)
James P. Pfiffner , and Roger H. Davidson
Manufacturer: Longman
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Leadership | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Law Enforcement | Criminal Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Politics Of The Presidency
The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush
Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making
The Presidency
Considering the Bush Presidency

ASIN: 0321202309

Book Description

Updated for the 2004 Presidential Election season, this collection of essays provides a fascinating tour of the history, development, and current day issues facing the American Presidency. Constitutional Origins of the Presidency; Historical Perspectives on the Presidency; Selecting Presidents: Campaigns, Elections, and Mandates; The Public Presidency: Press, Media, and Public Approval; The Institutional Presidency; The Separation of Powers; Domestic Policy Leadership; Commander-in-Chief and National Security; Evaluating Presidents: Greatness and Abuse of Power. Anyone interested in the American presidency

Average customer rating:

Criminal Justice and the 2004 Election
Tim Bakken , and William C. Ramsey
Manufacturer: Wadsworth Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Courts | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Criminal Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Criminal Procedure | Criminal Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Criminology | Crime & Criminals | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 0495008044

Book Description

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE ELECTION OF 2004 focus is primarily on key criminal justice issues that either influenced the election or will be affected by the outcome of the election. The primary issues covered are election regulations and fraud, the PATRIOT Act, military tribunals, Abu Ghraib, and recent Supreme Court decisions on the access of detainees to the American legal system. Key cases, such as Bush v. Gore, U.S. v. Nixon, Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, and Hamdi v. Rumsfield are briefed and also discussed in a manner that is accessible to all levels of students.

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000

Average customer rating:

Book review
He makes it interesting
Digital Version of Supreme Injustice, Alan Dershowitz
Explains the damage done to American justice in this case
U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000
Alan M. Dershowitz
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Legal System | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President
Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election
Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts
Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge
Rights from Wrongs: The Origins of Human Rights in the Experience of Injustice

ASIN: 0195158075

Book Description

Millions of Americans were baffled and outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's role in deciding the presidential election of 2000 with its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. The Court had held a unique place in our system of checks and balances, seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it now issue a decision that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who may have actually lost the election? In Supreme Injustice, best-selling author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz addresses these questions head-on, at last demystifying Bush v. Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning. Dershowitz--himself a former Supreme Court clerk--argues that in this case for the first time, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan outcome have priority over legal principles. As in his other bestselling books, Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm." Digging deeply into their earlier writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so. The most egregious ruling since the Dred Scott Decision, Bush v. Gore has shattered the image of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial arbiter of important national issues. The resulting loss of the American people's respect, Dershowitz concludes, has severely compromised the Court's role in national affairs. And yet Dershowitz sees some benefit emerging from this constitutional crisis--if we understand its lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again.

Download Description

Millions of Americans were baffled and outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's role in ending the presidential election of 2000 with its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. The Court had held a unique place in our system of checks and balances, and was seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it issue decisions that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who, for all it knew at the time, may have actually lost the election? In Supreme Injustice, bestselling author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz addresses these questions head-on, at last demystifying Bush v. Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning.

Customer Reviews:

Book review.......2005-09-12

My order was processed in an acceptable amount of time. Book was in condition as advertised.

He makes it interesting.......2005-08-06

Dershowitz makes this potentially dry subject very interesting, while remaining credible. Although I went into the book agreeing with the author, the book got me angry all over again. I'd guess that even those who wanted a Bush presidency would find much of the information in this book interesting.

Digital Version of Supreme Injustice, Alan Dershowitz.......2004-12-18

The biggest dissapointment I had with getting this book is that I purchased the Microsoft Reader Version. One is led to believe that one can highlight, cut and paste, etc., by using this new tool for reading. Actually, all you get is electronic pages that are inert. They cannot be printed, one cannot cut and paste from them, all one can do is stare at them on the screen. In order to transfer the print from screen to one's computer, one must first copy (by hand) the print, re-type it on screen into another program, then save. In other words, the e-version, for the researcher is not only ABSOLUTELY USELESS, it DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF WORK ONE MUST DO TO EXCERPT MATERIAL FROM A BOOK.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF PERSON MICROSOFT HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY CREATED THIS INFLEXIBLE PRODUCT. IT IS CERTAINLY A DISASTER FOR ME, AND I INTEND TO REQUEST A REFUND ON MY "DIGITAL PURCHASE" SINCE ALL I PURCHASED WAS AN INERT, DOUBLE-THE-WORK TO READ AND EXCERPT BOOK. WHAT A DISASTER! WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER. IT SORT OF MAKES ONE WONDER WHY THEY EVEN WENT TO THE TROUBLE TO CREATE THIS PRODUCT.

Explains the damage done to American justice in this case.......2004-10-18

For those who do not know the story, the American Presidential election in 2000 was very close. Democrat Al Gore received more popular votes than Republican George W Bush, but such elections are decided state by state, and the winner in Florida was to determine who would be President. In Florida, more voters intended to vote for Gore than for Bush, but due to several irregularities, the vote was very close. Close enough to require a mandatory recount. Close enough so that either candidate could ask for a hand count of disputed ballots.

As it turned out, a complete recount of all ballots would have confirmed that Gore had won. According to Florida law, such a recount should have been performed. When a recount got under way, it grew increasingly clear that Gore might well win. However, the Republican strategy (in a state where Bush's brother was the governor) was to refuse a recount or to delay any recount until the Presidential winner had to be announced. If the Democrats protested, they would take the case to court. To the Supreme Court. And if they lost that case, they would simply have the Florida legislature declare Bush the winner of the state. Either way, Bush would win an illegitimate victory.

Given that the initial count favored Bush, a Republican victory could not be prevented. And even in the unlikely event that a complete hand count (including "overvotes") favored Bush, neutral observers would still note that a plurality of the Florida voters had tried to vote for Gore, and that Florida law was to favor the clear intent of the voters. So the illegitimacy of the result was inevitable no matter how the hand count came out. The only question was where the blame would rest. Would it be on those in Florida who delayed the count? On the Florida legislature? On the Florida Courts? Or on the Supreme Court?

Dershowitz explains how the blame wound up being applied, quite accurately, to the Supreme Court, which took a case and judged it purely on a partisan basis. And he explains what the result of this mischief will be. First, unlike a miscarriage of justice in a criminal case, which might get blamed on the jurors, the Supreme Court judges are there for life. They'll be considered untrustworthy by a huge number of people for the rest of their lives, and that will make the Supreme Court less credible as long as any of them remain on it. Dershowitz also says that it will call into much greater question the entire process by which Supreme Court judges are selected. And of course, this entire affair has exposed the absurdities of our voting system to the world, which regards us with less esteem as a result.

Many Americans were annoyed with the Supreme Court simply because it picked someone other than the person they voted for. Others were angry because it picked the loser rather than the winner. However, Dershowitz is more concerned with the Supreme Court having showed partisanship at all, especially in a manner that threatens the carefully established checks and balances among branches of government so carefully laid out in our Constitution.

Finally, Dershowitz reminds us that the authority of the Supreme Court "rests on public acceptance of its status as a nonpartisan arbiter of law." Judicial integrity gets built up slowly and in this case was squandered quickly. This book does an excellent job of showing just how dismally the Supreme Court performed here.

U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!.......2004-06-14

U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!
The USA Supreme Court saved America. The USA Constitution saved America from chaos, instalbiliy.

The Constitution created three distinct branches of government with "check and balaces". The "legislative", "executive", "judicial" are vested in three seperate branches of government.... and yet Presidents appoint Judges, the Senate can veto Presidential treaties, Congress can override the Presidents veto on a bill....

That how it is supposed to work. Each of the three branches is distinct, seperate, and yet still exercise power over the other.

The USA Supreme Court stepped in to stop the endless recount and saved America from a Civil War. The Supreme Court did the job it was supposed to. The Supreme Court did the job given by the Constitution.

THOSE CAN DO WILL DO, THOSE CANNOT DO WILL TEACH.

Dershowitz is an academic, with tenure, of course, job for life, until he drops dead. Academic never have to work, compete, produce goods, services like in the real world.

If this know-it-all is so smart, why doesn't he run for Congress or President.

Customer Reviews:

An exhaustive study of the history of voting rights.......2000-10-12

Shaw v. Reno is at the heart of Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction, historian J. Morgan Kousser's closely reasoned critique of the Court's recent rulings on the constitutionality of "majority-minority" congressional districts-districts created for the purpose of ensuring adequate minority representation in the House of Representatives...

Colorblind Injustice is an angry book. Kousser is convinced that in a series of recent decisions, beginning with Shaw v. Reno, the Rehnquist Court has destroyed the hard-won gains that African Americans have made in political representation. Kousser considers those decisions to be bad law, bad history, and bad public policy, and he hopes "to set voting rights policy straight by getting its history right" (p. 2). In the pursuit of that ambition, he has written an exhaustive study of the recent history of voting rights, a study so carefully researched and intelligently reasoned that it will probably become the definitive work on this subject...

Kousser begins his analysis with a celebration of the achievements of the Second Reconstruction, a period when "the Court's willingness to protect the rights of minority citizens or let Congress do so, along with the stable majority of experienced and sympathetic members of Congress from 1954 to 1994, allowed judges, Congress, bureaucrats, and interest groups to improve federal protections [for minority rights] gradually and pragmatically" (p. 53). In Kousser's eyes, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been central to this process of minority protection, especially Section 5 of that act, which requires states that had prohibited black voting in the past to submit changes in electoral laws to the Justice Department for approval...

In Kousser's eyes, progress came to an end with the Supreme Court's ruling in Shaw v. Reno that two sprawling congressional districts, which were carefully drawn to ensure that they held black majorities, were in probable violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law...Like Javert in Les Misérables, Kousser is relentless in the pursuit of his quarry. He devotes 250 pages of text to careful historical analyses of white politicians' successful attempts since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to reduce or deny minority representation in Los Angeles, Memphis, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. Kousser then spends the remaining 150 pages of his book explicating his thorough and scathing critique of the Rehnquist Court's decisions on the constitutionality of the majority-minority congressional districts that state legislatures created in response to Justice Department pressure. In Kousser's eyes, the Rehnquist Court-usually by five-to-four votes-has (1) ignored the relevant historical contexts of the cases it decided, (2) made bad law, and (3) defined central concepts in these cases in a manner contrary to their clear meaning. Shaw v. Reno illustrates all these problems...

Often Kousser's critique of the Rehnquist Court is so extreme and his use of language so hyperbolic that they weaken his credibility. For example, a reader of Colorblind Injustice, ignorant of the Court's history, might conclude that only the Rehnquist Court-and its racist predecessors-made decisions that were "abstract, formalistic, and factually incorrect" (p. 466) and substituted its own public-policy preferences for established judicial precedent...

When Kousser ends his book by comparing the Shaw cases with the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, arguing that they "all buttressed a seemingly uncertain white supremacy" (p. 465), he goes too far. Dred Scott asserted that African Americans had no "rights which the white man was bound to respect" and that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution." Plessy v. Ferguson upheld racial segregation and contained the cynical and racist observation that "if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Whatever the shortcomings of Shaw v. Reno, neither its reasoning nor its impact is comparable to those ugly, vicious, racist judgments...

Historically, African Americans and other minorities have made their greatest political gains through the formation of interracial coalitions. The abolition of slavery was a biracial effort, as were both Reconstructions. After World War II, African Americans in the industrial states of the North and West shrewdly exercised their voting rights in a manner that led to their courtship by politicians of both major political parties. Black votes often decided the outcome of state and national elections, as they did in the 1948 and 1960 presidential races. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed, civil rights leaders and congressional leaders of both parties were present in what was a truly biracial and bipartisan celebration.

Buy this orange for your students of American politics.......2000-04-07

The anonymous reviewer's comparison of Colorblind Injustice to David Canon's book is misplaced. Although both books are good and address the issue of minority voting rights, they raise very different, though, equally broad questions. Canon asks who is represented in majority-Black districts, while Kousser is concerned with the impact of the court's voting rights decisions for minorities and the country. It is like comparing apples and oranges. I strongly recommend Kousser's book. It is historically grounded and makes quite plain how institutional arrangments systematically limit the political influence of minority voters. Kousser writes extremely well and quite vividly. I especially recommend it for courses on Black politics and parts of the book (chapter one, for instance) for instructors who provide supplemental readings in their introductory American government courses. In the past I used the late Frank Parker's book Black Votes Count to follow our discussion of the civil rights movement in my courses on Black politics. Parker's book is a case study of the legal challenge to Mississippi's long efforts at suppressing the Black vote. It is especially useful because it shows how the state of Mississippi discriminated against its Black citizens not only in its past but very recently through the 1980s. Kousser's book does the same but covers more ground to include California and is current.

Not the best in the field.......2000-02-21

There is much to appreciate here, such as the detail of the case studies -- the Memphis case in particular, brings us back to an earlier era in our nation's history.

But the broad themes of the book strike me as its greatest weakness. The analogy between Reconstruction in the period just after the Civil War on the one hand, and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s that Kousser calls the "second" Reconstruction, is lame.

The very first sentence shows some of the problems with this book. "Institutions and institutional rules -- not customs, ideas, attitudes, culture, or private behavior -- have primarily shaped race relations in America." If he took that sentence seriously, it would lead him into a definitional swamp, analyzing the different but overlapping meaanings of all the words used there, discussing which one is "primary" and for what reason. He does not take it seriously enough to get us mired in that swamp, but it remains a weak opening.

The best book in this field is David T. Canon's, RACE, REDISTRICTING, AND REPRESENTATION.

A powerful reinterpretation of race and politics in America.......1999-08-13

COLORBLIND INJUSTICE is a magnificent book with mighty themes. Built upon historian J. Morgan Kousser's two decades of work as an expert witness in voting rights cases, enriched by his rigorous state-of-the-art political analysis, and supported by massive and precise documentation, this powerful work will fundamentally alter discussion of race and politics in modern America. Most significantly, it convincingly refutes currently-fashionable talk about the benefits of eliminating government protection of the political rights of minorities. Kousser demonstrates, for example, that several supposedly "colorblind" 1990s voting rights decisions by the United States Supreme Court have been unfairly partial to the Republican Party, unjustly biased against the interests of African-American voters, contrary to the original intention of the relevant laws and constitutional amendments, and revolutionary in overturning well-established precedent. He also demolishes the underpinnings of the advocacy of supposedly "colorblind" racial policies by Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom in AMERICA IN BLACK AND WHITE, a "benchmark" conservative study of 20th century race relations. One central subject of COLORBLIND INJUSTICE is the relentlessly-political process by which state legislatures decennially draw congressional district boundaries. In 1991 the federal Justice Department, implementing the 1982 amendments to the federal Voting Rights Act, pressed states to create districts according to criteria that allowed minority politicians and voters to play a fairer role in the process than ever before and to increase the number of black-majority districts. Minority representation in Congress grew, but in no state did white representation fall below the white portion of the population. The Thernstroms have condemned the Justice Department's 1991 effort and have urged the Supreme Court to prohibit any minority preferences and to forbid any reference to racial classifications in drawing districts. Such "colorblind" policies, they claim, will reduce racial divisions and will foster racial healing, harmony, and equity. But the Thernstroms fail to deal with crucial political realities that Kousser demonstrates conclusively, realities that render the supposedly "colorblind" Thernstrom proposals unfeasible and unjust. For example, the Thernstroms and the Supreme Court implicitly assume that state legislatures adhere typically to "traditional race-neutral districting principles," thereby creating compact non-political districts that embrace natural communities. Kousser demonstrates instead that congressional redistricting has continually been an inherently-political no-holds-barred pushing and shoving process in which contending politicians relentlessly gerrymander in political party and protecting the interests of powerful incumbents. Moreover, since blacks vote solidly Democratic, politicians pursuing such partisan and incumbent benefit will inevitably and always give painstaking attention to race, vying fiercely to arrange a politically advantageous allocation of the predictably-Democratic black voters among districts. Typically Republicans will strive to pack most black voters into a very few heavily black urban districts, thereby "wasting" many black votes and keeping them out of suburban "Republican" districts. Typically white Democrats will seek to spread the black vote around into several contested districts, keeping it below 50 percent in each district so that black candidates cannot challenge white Democratic incumbents, but also carefully placing black voters where they can be useful in helping to defeat white Republicans. Neither white Republican nor white Democratic leaders will really want to allow minority voters the opportunity to elect the candidates they most prefer. The Thernstroms' notion that "colorblind" Court decisions can cause politicians to draw districts without reference to race is unrealistic. Court prohibitions will merely drive the inevitable partisan and incumbent-serving racial calculations and manipulations underground and out of sight, rendering them more unfair and more disadvantageous to the black voters themselves. Only in the 1991 redistricting, under the supervision of the Justice Department, was the ubiquitous political manipulation of race constrained in a way that allowed black voters a fair chance to elect their preferred candidates. But, starting with Shaw v. Reno in 1993, the five-member conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has ruled some but not all of the 1991 black-majority districts unconstitutional. The Thernstroms have applauded the Court's direction, but have urged it to be more consistent and to go further--to declare unconstitutional any attention to racial classifications in drawing districts. Instead the Court has muddled along, and Kousser meticulously demonstrates that the muddling five-member conservative Court majority, all appointed by Republican presidents, has rendered a series of inconsistent decisions that are at once partisan (pro-Republican) and anti-minority. For example, the Court majority has condemned partisan redistrictings as racial in North Carolina and Texas, where they had been designed to aid Democrats, but it has endorsed equally partisan and racial redistrictings in Ohio and California, where they had been designed to aid Republicans. Also the Court majority has unfairly applied a "compactness" requirement to black-majority districts, but not to white-majority districts. If Shaw v. Reno and similar decisions stand and govern the 2001 congressional redistricting process, Republican strategies for advantageously manipulating race will be legal, Democratic strategies illegal. The entire process will be less open, more furtive and devious, less accessible to minorities, more vulnerable to anti-minority gerrymandering, and more often thrown finally into the hands of state and federal courts, which tend to favor conservative Republican interests. The five conservative Supreme Court justices sanctimoniously claim that their 1990s decisions adhere to a principle of "colorblindness" derived from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. But as Kousser observes, their commitment to "colorblindness" has "collapsed when the interests of the Republican Party were at stake." Moreover, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were originally designed for the express purpose of protecting blacks against a palpable prospect of anti-minority discrimination and anti-minority party maneuvers. The conservative justices misread and misuse those protective amendments when they find in them only an abstract "colorblind" principle and when they invoke that principle not to protect against, but in fact to foster a continuing palpable prospect of anti-minority discrimination and anti-minority partisan gerrymandering.

The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election

Average customer rating:

Fine academic look at...
Fast Production, Disappointing Results
Very good reporting, but poor editing
Time to read it again
Not Biased?

The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election
Howard Gillman
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election
The Choices Justices Make
Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts
The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court
The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (American Politics and Political Economy Series)

ASIN: 0226294080

Book Description

The struggle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election inspired countless books, most of them hasty political critiques. However, with this book, Howard Gillman had different aims from the beginning: to create a lasting, authoritative document of the 36 days between the election and its legal resolution, to offer an accessible overview of the legal strategies and debates, and to assess the influence of politics and law on the judges who shaped the outcome of this historical controversy.

Customer Reviews:

Fine academic look at..........2005-07-14

the outcome of 2000 election and how America got there. The book chronologically relives the legal battles in courts by pro-Bush and pro-Gore forcs culminating with a 5-4 Supreme Court rulings overturning Florida's Supreme Court. Well written and well researched. If after reading the book you are still sincerely convinced that Bush v. Gore (I) and (II) were legally sound decisions, I would recommend another book: "The Attitudial Model (Revised)" by Segal and Spaeth.

Fast Production, Disappointing Results.......2003-08-13

The book is definitely biased, as the author admits. Some biased books are OK, but this one is really one-sided and employs such irrational discourse that you wonder how they accepted it as "academic." I think the topic was hot at the moment, and the publisher did not carefully read the whole thing. Also how can you explain that a professor committed so many grammatical errors, and the editor let them errors go? You thought that maybe they had real peer review and real editing before publishing. 'Guess a timely book can be published, even if it's biased and uses the style and grammar typically associated with writings of a struggling middle school student. All in all, this one's a mystery.

Very good reporting, but poor editing.......2003-05-06

In this book, The Votes that Counted, Howard Gillman does a masterful job of reporting the facts that led up to the dispute, and the chronology of events during the aftermath of the Presidential Election in November, 2000.

Naturally, Gillman focuses on Florida, which was the state of most interest in the election, since its electoral votes would ultimately determine who would reside in the White House.

Gillman is, in my opinion, biased, with an evident fondness of the Democratic Party. There is, of course, nothing wrong with being opiniated, and Gillman does not let this interfere with his reporting of the evident facts.

Gillman's analysis of the election and the subsequent judicial participation is a good one, and certainly does correlate well with the title of the book; he explains well why he feels that the justices of the Supreme Court (all five of them that sided with Bush) determined who the next President of the United States would be.

As I was reading this book, I frequently found that I had to stop and re-read some sentences multiple times in order to understand the meaning; verbs were conjugated improperly, and improper tenses were used. I do not fault the author for these grammatical errors - I fault the editor for failing to catch and correct them.

I found this to be a valuable book, and one worthy of studying carefully as study of the Presidental election of 2000 and judicial intervention in that contest. I gave it four stars rather than five because of what I see as a lack of strong editing.

Time to read it again.......2003-03-15

I first ran into this book at my college library and renewed it twice so I could take my time enjoying it. A year later I bought it. I play on reading it again on Spring Break.

Placing the reader inside the legal system so soon after the decision, the author was able to capture the feelings of the justices and judges while the emotions were still in the air.

The only major downfall of this book is the lack of logic expressed by the author several times to support his views. However, in any book in which the author admits a bias, I am inclined to assume there will be a slant to support his view when I read it.

I feel this book is so good, I still give it 5 stars.

Not Biased?.......2002-12-08

The two stars are given for the acute factual account of the events and their proceedings of the election. And while the author does offer arguments to both sides of the debate (whether the final ruling by the supreme court was partisan or not), he often gives illegitimate reasons for dismissing the argument against partisanship while promoting his that is was a partisan decision. Case in point he dedicates 4 pages to the defense of the majority justices rulings (2 of which are dismissals of the argument) while giving some 25 pages to the opposing argument never offering any sound reasoning as to why it itself may be wrong. There are severe holes in many of his reasonings as he often contradicts himself. I was also astounded by the many grammatical errors and misprints, which is naturally to be blamed on the editor. Overall, the book provides a great summation of events, but the only real bias is that of the author's view, regardless of whether he is correct. Clearly this was a one-sided, unfair analysis of the debate with pitiful attempts to appear judicious and fair-sided in its logic.

Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives (Hoover Studies in Politics, Economics, and Society)

Average customer rating:

Good Read
Fight Club Politics
Go Immediately to Page 49 of Juliet Eilperin's Splendid Work
A history of the House, its actions, and how past decisions differ from modern times
Explains Why the House is so Extreme

Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives (Hoover Studies in Politics, Economics, and Society)
Juliet Eilperin
Manufacturer: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Congresses, Senates, & Legislative Bodies | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political Parties | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century
The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine
Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy; With a new Afterword
Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid

ASIN: 0742551180

Book Description

The House of Representatives - the people's House - is supposed to most closely reflect the needs and desires of ordinary citizens. But over the past decade, House leaders fearful of losing power have torn the House from its roots. The creation of politically safe, more ideologically-tilted congressional districts through redistricting has cemented this shift and seated more politicians from both the extreme left and right. Fight Club Politics will show how we have come to the point where average Americans have little say over what happens in the House, and what can be done about it.

Customer Reviews:

Good Read.......2007-01-11

I eagerly purchased this book after seeing Eilperin on the Daily Show over the summer. It is a short book, and was somewhat disappointing. If you have read either Culture War? by Morris Fiorina, or The Myth of a Polarized America by Gary Jacobson then this book may be a bit of a novice read. Eilperin's book seems like an elongated term paper on polarization of the House, and it cites its sources in just that manner. It tells many tales that further the perception of polarization, with countless interviews of Congressman, Senators and staffers, but offers little analysis of their impact beyond the obvious. All in all, it was a good book, not great, but good. If you want to see examples of polarization in the House, read this book. If you want empirical proof of how it happened, and predictions of its relevance, try something a little more in depth.

Fight Club Politics.......2007-01-10

Puzzled about how Congress became seduced by lobbyist ? Eilperin shows how changes by the Rules Committee concentrated powers in the hands of the Leadership and enabled this influence. In as much that Newt Gingrish may run for President and the changes occurred while he was Speaker, the lessons are relevant now.This book deserves to be read widely because of the lessons it can teach.

Go Immediately to Page 49 of Juliet Eilperin's Splendid Work.......2006-11-21

I am writing this review about two weeks after the elections of 2006. Needless to add, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. Juliet Eilperin writes the following on page 49:

"...the House has always been a majoritarian institution, where the party in control imposes its vision on the chamber.

This strategy has encouraged Democrats to become even more partisan, however, because they have nothing invested in the measures Hastert brings to the House floor. It has also prompted GOP leaders to rush through legislation with little oversight, short-circuiting the public debate that often exposes a bill's potential flaws."

Let's be blunt: the Democrats can no longer claim to be a beleaguered minority. Will they behave better than their former alleged persecutors? Well, we will find out soon enough. The author argues convincingly that common courtesy and fairness are virtues often not practiced within the walls of the House of Representatives. Both parties have been guilty of pushing their weight around when they are in the driver's seat. This book should be required reading for every member of Congress. Eilperin not only cites numerous horror stories of past abuses---she offers suggestions on how to improve matters. Perhaps you might wish to consider purchasing a copy for your own representative? And yes, you also need to read it. It is ultimately the fault of the voters if matters do not improve. We are the ones with the real power. Our congressmen and women work for us!

David Thomson
Flares into Darkness

A history of the House, its actions, and how past decisions differ from modern times.......2006-08-16

The House of Representatives is supposed to be closest to the desires of ordinary citizens - but in reality it's lost its way and in recent years are more fixed on power plays than consumer representation: that's the message of FIGHT CLUB POLITICS: HOW PARTISANSHIP IS POISONING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Here's an important survey for any who would understand modern politics: it provides a history of the House, its actions, and how past decisions differ from modern times.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

Explains Why the House is so Extreme.......2006-06-26

The creation of politically safe, more ideologically tilted congressional seats through redistricting has cemented the Republican hold on power and made the House of Representatives unrepresentative - so charges Eilperin in "Fight Club Politics." Republicans take about two-thirds of committee seats, even though they had only 52.9% of the vote in '94. Another "innovation" was having leadership PACs dole out money, instead of challengers, junior lawmakers, and possibly more independent lawmakers.

Thirty years ago new members were more likely to move their families to D.C., eager to become part of the social scene. Families often socialized with each other, regardless of party. This lifestyle disappeared in the late '80's and early '90s - especially after Armey and Gingrich warned the Class of '94 to keep their families away from the D.C. The intent was to focus on one's district, and members became "Tuesday to Thursday" legislators.

Rather than seeking a comfortable bipartisan majority for their initiatives, GOP leaders now focus on securing 218 votes on their side so they can craft bills as conservative as possible. Thus, the Democrats have become irrelevant. Given the Republicans' slight majority, floor amendments are banned 78% of the time. Sixty percent of all bills are exempted from the requirement of at least 48 hours to review bills, and nearly 40% come off the printer after 8 P.M. (Result: Democrats had one hour before the vote on a 3,000 page $1 trillion budget bill.)

House tradition dictated that the minority party got to send delegates of its choice to conference committees - no longer. Term-limiting committee chairs, and filling those positions via leadership decision (vs. seniority) has further augmented leadership power. Members now are also required to donate campaign funds to retain choice assignments.

Bottom Line: Gerrymandering + closed primaries creates much more extreme politics with a focus on primaries. Fixing the problem will require an end to gerrymandering. Several states have done this, Iowa being the most obvious, but there is a long way to go.

Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform

Average customer rating:

Good at expounding a viewpoint rarely heard, however...
THE BEST
Converted Me!
Best Analysis Of The Issue Yet...
Freedom!

Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform
Bradley A. Smith
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Practical Politics | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook
The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Campaigning American Style)
Life After Reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Meets Politics (Campaigning American Style)
Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms
Money Matters

ASIN: 0691070458

Book Description

At a time when campaign finance reform is widely viewed as synonymous with cleaning up Washington and promoting political equality, Bradley Smith, a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance reform, argues that all restriction on campaign giving should be eliminated. In Unfree Speech, he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power.

Smith demonstrates that these laws, which often force ordinary people making modest contributions of cash or labor to register with the Federal Election Commission or various state agencies, fail to accomplish their stated objectives. In fact, they have worked to entrench incumbents in office, deaden campaign discourse, burden grassroots political activity with needless regulation, and distance Americans from an increasingly professional, detached political class. Rather than attempting to plug "loopholes" in campaign finance law or instituting taxpayer-financed campaigns, Smith proposes a return to core First Amendment values of free speech and an unfettered right to engage in political activity.

Smith finds that campaign contributions have little corrupting effect on the legislature and shows that an unrestrained system of contributions and spending actually enhances equality. More money, not less, is needed in the political system, Smith concludes. Unfree Speech draws upon constitutional law and historical research to explain why campaign finance regulation is doomed and to illustrate the potentially drastic costs of efforts to make it succeed. Whatever one thinks about the impact of money on electoral politics, no one should take a final stand without reading Smith's controversial and important arguments.

Customer Reviews:

Good at expounding a viewpoint rarely heard, however..........2005-08-17

I greatly appreciate Professor Smith's analysis. If nothing else, the rarely heard opposition to campaing finance reform is set forth clearly in this book. There is, however, some shortcomings in his analysis.

First, take this passage (there are other analogous ones in the book that prove a similar point) from page 71:

"(Steve) Forbes indicated that he would not have sought the nomination had former congressman and secretary of housing and urban development Jack Kemp decided to run. Kemp chose not to run in large part because he did not want to engage in fund-raising. Had Forbes been able to donate to Kemp the $25 million he planned to spend on his own campaign, Kemp might have run and would quite likely have been a frontrunner for the Republican nomination."

It is easy to see that from this bit (and others) that Professor Smith does not wish to gloss over that fact that money in fact DOES affect politics. Later on that same page he entertains a thought experiment in which all campaign contributions were banned to see who would run in such a scenario. He admits that those with the most name recognition (athletes, celebrities, incumbents, succesful business persons active in their community, etc.) would be able to win. And importantly, he says that those who would win in the experiment wouldnt be much different than those who win now. It would seem then, that name recognition or fame also affects politics.

Thus, the following two things Professor Smith does not challenge: money affects politics, and name recognition affects politics. Now, it is also apparent that money affects name recognition (think TV ads). Given that Professor Smith does not argue with these things, an proponent of reform is unlikely to be swayed. For proponents the unconstested fact that money affects politics (and can buy at least some degree of name recognition) is enough to justify contribution limits. So, it would have been better to see Professor Smith adress more directly the proponents onjections.

I also find lacking that Professor Smith does not mention much about spending for state or local elections and how money affects politics in those instances. For example, in the Austin, TX city council elections recently, 4 Democratic candidates with near identical views ran. The election came to a runoff between the two top contenders, both of whom had TV ads while the other two did not. Does this disprove Professor Smith's arguments? No, but it would be better if he discussed local elections as well.

THE BEST.......2003-02-11

I WISH I COULD HAVE GIVEN IT 500 STARS! READ IT! THAT'S MY ORDER! Man I love this book!

Converted Me!.......2002-11-15

This book changing my way of thinking 180 degrees. I was a huge John McCain and Campaign Finance Reform fan, but I read this book just to see what the other side had to say. I am sure glad I did! Smith points out many problems with alleged reform on mulitple levels. If you are interested in campaign finance reform, however you may feel about the subject, I suggest you read this book.

Best Analysis Of The Issue Yet..........2001-07-31

As the best known critic of campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith makes strong arguments not just against the legislation itself but against the philosophy underlying the entire movement. This is important, because many supporters of reform refuse to acknowledge that any case against their rationale exists. Many critiques of campaign finance legislation focus on proving that not nearly as much money is spent on campaigning as the public has been led to believe, or that the proposed legislation would give certain types of grassroots groups an unfair advantage over others. Smith's attack goes much further than that. He demonstrates why, in the long run, strict regulation of campaigns will harm everyone by crippling their ability to channel their talents into meaningful participation in the political process.

The first half of the book serves as a comprehensive survey of arguments brought against reform. He begins by analyzing why the proposed legislation would give incumbents enormous advantages over challengers. From there, he discusses how the term corruption has been expanded to mean anything that a legislator does to respond to the wishes of constituents who helped contribute to her campaign-whether or not a causal link can be established between particular contributions and particular legislation. He concludes it with a section on how limits placed on monetary expenditures made to pay for speech are, in fact, limits placed on speech itself because the expenditure of money to pay for speech is inextricably linked to speech itself.

In the second half, he deconstructs philosophical arguments used to justify reforms and turns them on their heads. He starts by pointing out that supporters of reform typically ignore the fact that most non-monetary means of influencing politicians are not distributed on an egalitarian basis. Thus, simply removing private contributions from our political system will not make everyone equal overnight. He develops this point by discussing the traditional notion of political equality-that "...Citizens are free to use their differing abilities, financial wherewithal, and personal disposition to become more or less active in political life, and to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a particular manner." He points out that campaign finance reform is nothing more than an attempt to narrow the pool of individuals afforded this freedom.

He concludes by hammering this point home: "...Because the First Amendment...makes no distinction between the different types of political influence, it allows a maximum number of voters to participate and helps to prevent any one faction or interest from gaining the upper hand in political debate." This Madisonian indictment of the campaign finance movement goes above and beyond merely attacking various legislative proposals as incumbent protection schemes. It cuts through all the political rhetoric and reveals what campaign finance reform really is: an attempt by a coalition of elite groups to cast the rules of political debate on their own terms.

If you're concerned about free speech, read this book. You won't be disappointed.

Freedom!.......2001-06-12

We live in a strange age where advocates for free speech like Bradley Smith are cruxified in the newspaper and those who call for government regulations of speech are lauded.

In this important work, Smith points out the this hypocrisy and others dealing with America's number one feel good issue -- campaign finance reform.

America's staunchest proponents for freedom of the press are also America's strong propnents of regulation of political speech. Smith takes them on head-on with an impressive array of facts, figures and historical example.

In Smith's view, and the view of our Founders, the answer to problems dealing with political speech lie not in government regulation but in more political speech. Too bad American's news media and opinion makers don't take this message to heart.

Law Books:

Law Books

Law Books