Special Coverage: 2000 Elections

WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf highlights a crucial consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions of December 4 (remanding to the Florida Supreme Court) and December 9 (staying the statewide manual recount the Florida Supreme Court had ordered). These decisions, Professor Dorf argues, held that citizens have no right to vote in Presidential elections. That should be changed, he argues, by Constitutional amendment.
Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2000

PRECEDENTS FOR THIS BITTERLY FOUGHT ELECTION
FindLaw columnist Michael Dorf, who is Vice Dean and profesor of law at Columbia Law School, examines the roots of the bitter legal battles that have characterized this closely fought Presidential election. He traces the legalization of our politics from Watergate, to the Jones suit, to the recent impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2000

THE ELECTION DISPUTE POSES A FAMILIAR PROBLEM FOR THE COURTS
Columbia Law School professor and Vice Dean Michael C. Dorf counters the oft-heard argument that the Presidential election's disputes should not be brought to court. Professor Dorf also notes, however, that as is typical in law, a tradeoff between rule-enforcement and justice may have to occur for these disputes to be resolved.
Monday, Nov. 13, 2000

BUSH'S AFFIRMATIVE ACCESS
FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the meaning of George W. Bush's "affirmative access," and why it is very unlikely to be as effective as affirmative action.
Wednesday, Nov. 01, 2000

BUSH VERSUS BUSH
As part of his education policy, George W. Bush has proposed providing federal grants to the states for a number of programs. A Columbia Law School professor questions whether these programs would survive the scrutiny of the Justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Monday, Sep. 11, 2000

MARCI HAMILTON
HOLDING THE PRESS ACCOUNTABLE AS IT "RECOUNTS"
FindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton sets down principles that, she argues, should guide the press' post-election evaluation of Florida votes. Professor Hamilton contends that the Supreme Court's recent decision, which led to Vice President Gore's concession, provides standards of fairness and equality among voters that should not only be honored by state legislatures, but also considered carefully by the press before it purports, in retrospective, to ascertain who the "real" vote count winner in Florida was.
Thursday, Dec. 21, 2000

WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION WAS NEITHER PARTISAN NOR POLITICAL
FindLaw columnist, NYU law professor, and former Supreme Court clerk Marci Hamilton defends the U.S. Supreme Court's recent per curiam opinion, which had the effect of deciding the election, from charges that it was partisan and political. Hamilton contends that Justices in both the majority and in dissent found broad agreement on the case's voting rights issue (7-2) that was more significant than their split (5-4) as to remedy, and that the case will be remembered historically as an important Equal Protection Clause precedent, not as an instance of party politics as many have claimed.
Thursday, Dec. 14, 2000

THE ELECTION -- NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, AFTER ALL
FindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the many Constitutional mechanisms that have come into play, both directly and more subtly, in the election -- ranging from federalism to separation of powers to the First Amendment -- and concludes that our Constitutional structure has admirably preserved social order and civility in a situation that could have become chaotic.
Thursday, Dec. 07, 2000

GEORGE W.: A TRUE BIPARTISAN
Law Professor and FindLaw columnist Marci Hamilton contends that George W. Bush's claim that he can form bipartisan coalitions is accurate -- as is evidenced by his support for Texas' compromise version of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Thursday, Oct. 26, 2000

JULIE HILDEN
COULD THE ELECTION HAVE COME OUT DIFFERENTLY, IF ONLY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD ACTED DIFFERENTLY?
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden contends that the Florida Supreme Court's failure to respond promptly to the U.S. Supreme Court's remand order in the first Gore v. Bush case, concerning the manual recount deadline, may have insulted and piqued a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, she suggests that absent this insult, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week might have come out differently -- and a Bush presidency might not have resulted.
Friday, Dec. 15, 2000

READING THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S OPINION
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden analyzes the Florida Supreme Court's Friday opinion, which requires manual recounts of "undervotes" that could extend statewide, and which will be the subject of today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument. She outlines a number of respects in which the opinion diverges from traditional appellate court decision making, and explains why the Florida opinion, from a lawyer's perspective, is an unusual one.
Monday, Dec. 11, 2000

THE BATTLE OVER ELECTION SPIN
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden explains why the portrayal of Gore as a sore loser in the days since the election has been to some extent unfair. However, she contends that Gore has made some decisions that play into this portrayal and suggests a way for the vice president to reverse this spin, with the help of President Clinton.
Monday, Nov. 27, 2000

ALMOST A LITMUS TEST
Attorney and FindLaw Columnist Julie Hilden reflects on Al Gore's candid admission, during the first Presidential debate, that judicial nominees' records as lower court judges can help Presidents predict how they will vote on the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, Oct. 04, 2000

EDWARD LAZARUS
THE MEANING OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
FindLaw columnist, author, and former Supreme Court clerk Edward Lazarus considers what the charge of "judicial activism" really means; offers a distinction between good and bad kinds of activism; and suggests how the U.S. Supreme Court, in resolving the issues argued Monday, can avoid the bad type of activism that may delegitimize the Court as an institution.
Thursday, Dec. 12, 2000

WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S OPINION MEANS
FindLaw columnist, former Supreme Clerk, and author Edward Lazarus explains the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Monday decision regarding the Florida Supreme Court's extension of the manual recount deadline. Lazarus concludes that the Florida court may, if it chooses, re-issue a decision that would achieve the same result through different analysis, and suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court's wise ruling is an act of statesmanship that will bolster its institutional status.
Tuesday, Dec. 05, 2000

WHY THE SUPREME COURT CHOSE TO HEAR GEORGE W. BUSH'S CASE
FindLaw columnist, former Supreme Court clerk, and Closed Chambers author Edward Lazarus considers two possible reasons for the Supreme Court's decision to hear George W. Bush's challenge to the Florida Supreme Court's ruling this Friday, and reflects on whether the Court will use the case to foster unity (perhaps with a unanimous decision) or sow division.
Thursday, Nov. 30, 2000

A NEW ANALOGY FOR THE CURRENT ELECTION PREDICAMENT
Many pundits have suggested the best analogy for the current election debacle can be found in other Presidential elections held in the 19th century. But FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus has a different take: the election, Lazarus contends, is best analogized to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, for both have revealed our society's deepest rifts.
Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2000

IF ANYONE SHOULD CONCEDE, IT SHOULD BE BUSH, NOT GORE
Attorney, author, and FindLaw columnist Edward Lazarus takes the Bush campaign to task for pushing for a Gore concession. Lazarus argues that if anyone should concede, it should be Bush, who lost the popular vote nationally and may win it in Florida by luck alone.
Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2000

ASSESSING BUSH'S CONVICTIONS
FindLaw columnist and legal Author Edward Lazarus reflects on how the media has chosen to focus more on who may have "leaked" the news of George W. Bush's DUI arrest, rather than the fact that he was convicted at all. Lazarus also assesses Bush's reasons for keeping his conviction a secret - until now.
Saturday, Nov. 04, 2000

SUPREME COURT ROULETTE
A former Supreme Court clerk addresses the conventional wisdom that the next presidential election will transform the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, Aug. 08, 2000

JOANNE MARINER
ELECTION LESSONS FROM ABROAD
What can America learn from criticism of our election in foreign media, and from international organizations that aim to improve elections worldwide? A great deal, it turns out. FindLaw columnist, Human Rights Watch Deputy Director, and attorney Joanne Mariner explains several respects in which U.S. elections, in Florida and nationally, fall woefully short of international standards.
Thursday, Dec. 14, 2000

FLORIDA'S 436,900 MISSING VOTES
FindLaw columnist and Human Rights Watch Deputy Director Joanne Mariner discusses the almost half a million voters who were barred from the polls in Florida, as a result of a state law that imposes lifetime disenfranchisement onpersons convicted of a felony. Mariner argues that, among its other defects,the law is racially discriminatory: Nearly one-third of African American men in Florida were barred from casting their vote because they had committed a felony at some point in the past.
Thursday, Nov. 30, 2000