Dubbed by the Washington Post as “undemocratic,” the caucus system for selecting delegates to national party presidential nominating conventions tends to disenfranchise identifiable factions of voters, including deployed service members, religious observers, persons with disabilities or in poor health, students who attend school away from home, and shift workers unable to leave work during caucus hours. The Note contends that eligible party voters have the constitutional right to vote in their political parties’ caucuses without being physically present. It presents three central constitutional arguments that raise doubts about the constitutionality of the physical attendance requirement of many state party caucuses: first, that the attendance requirement may violate the First Amendment associational rights of voters; second, that it may breach Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the right to vote; and third, that it may constitute an unconstitutional poll tax. The Note proposes four alternatives to the present caucus system that could eliminate or mitigate the potential unconstitutionality of the physical attendance requirement. Additionally, it examines which actors are best situated to reform caucuses. It concludes that the most effective avenues toward reform are an associational rights judicial challenge or congressional legislation.
Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte
EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit. Although the case presented many serious [...]
Revisiting Water Bankruptcy
REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]
Defying Auer Deference
DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]