POSC MIDTERM 2
Mobile v. Bordon
Court rules that any claims of dilution must include a demonstration of discriminatory purpose
Fairness Doctrine
FCC rule (no longer in effect) that required broadcasters to air a variety of viewpoints on their programs A Federal Communications Commission policy. The FCC believed that broadcast licenses were a form of public trust and, as such, licensees should provide balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues.
How have presidential political campaigns evolved over time, and what impact have they had on the outcome of presidential campaigns?"
Presidential political campaigns in the United States have evolved significantly, with changes in technology, media, and communication influencing how candidates interact with voters and shape their messages. In the early American politics presidential campaigns were often conducted through public speeches and newspaper editorials. The rise of radio in the 1920s allowed candidates to reach a wider audience and communicate more directly with voters. Television became the next dominant form in the 1950s and 1960s leading to modern campaign strategies such as political ads, debates, and images management. Recently, digital technology and social media have dramatically transformed presidential campaigns. Candidates now use various online tools and platforms to communicate with voters, fundraise, and organize efforts. This has led to the development of microtargeting, data analytics, and sophisticated online advertising campaigns. The impact of these changes on the outcome of presidential campaigns is complex and multifaceted. While new technologies have created opportunities for candidates to reach voters more directly and efficiently making it easier for campaigns to manipulate information and influence public opinion. The rise of social media has allowed candidates to bypass traditional gatekeepers and communicate directly with supporters. Still, it has also increased the role of emotion and personal identity in politics, potentially contributing to polarization and the rise of populism. Overall, the evolution of presidential campaigns reflects broader changes in American society and politics, and their impact on election outcomes is likely to evolve as technology and media change.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life
Prohibits campaign finance reform law from banning political advocacy. EC financing restrictions are unconstitutional. Electioneering Communication restrictions limited messages directly promoting or opposing candidates.
Gerrymandering
The practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage over its rivals. There are two different types of gerrymandering, "cracking" and "packing." Cracking reduces the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts and packing concentrates the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts.
Baker v. Carr
a landmark case in which the Supreme court ruled that federal courts have the authority to hear lawsuits challenging the drawing lines around state electoral districts can be reviewed. This decision helped establish the principle of "one person, one vote" and helped pave the way for fairer and more representative elections across the country.
Federal Campaign Finance Act
mandated disclosure reporting for federal political campaigns, and limited campaign spending on media and commercials. Set up PAC structure.
Buckley v. Valeo
A case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns. Contributions limits upheld on overall spending limits declared unconstitutional (cannot limit political expression). Limits allowed to match funds and no contribution limits on outside independent spending.
Citizens United v. FEC
A decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that independent expenditures are free speech protected by the 1st Amendment and so cannot be limited by federal law. Allowed independent expenditures for advertising campaigns, but there had to be a wall between the candidates campaign and the advocacy groups who pay for the expenditure. It resulted in the rise of the Super PAC and "dark money."
Electoral College
A group of people named by each state legislature to select the president and vice president The process by which the United States elects the President. In this process, the States elect the President and Vice President. Consists of 538 electors. In those 538 electors, 435 represent the House, 100 represents two U.S. senators in each state and lastly three represent District of Columbia's electors. In order to win the presidency it consists of a majority requirement of 270 electoral votes.
1. Why are American Political Campaigns so costly? What can be done about it?
American Political Campaigns are very costly due to a variety of reasons. The Avg winning campaign costs have gone up 5.5x since 1986 because of inflation. Some of these reasons include the direct costs of running a campaign, the length/time of political campaigns, and that campaign finance limits are deemed unconstitutional because they would "limit" political expression. The direct costs of running a campaign entails things like paying for staff that work on the campaign, paying for data files, paying for advertising through things like TV, Radio, Mail, Social Media, and Signs. In addition, candidates need to pay for Events like Rallies where they look to garner support and spread influence. They also need to pay for Office and Misc expenses. And, they have to pay for fundraising costs. If they want to make money, then they will need money. The length/time of political campaigns is also another big deal. Political campaigns in America are one of the longest in the world. Most other countries have limits for the length of their campaigns as well as limits for fundraising and spending. Long and time consuming campaigns in America mean longer times for campaign fundraising and spending. Lastly, Buckley v. Valeo determined the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits. This means that there is a lot of influence over elections. Candidates receive funding from sources like their Personal Network, Party, Interest groups, Donor networks, and even Small donors. All these sources work to bring in money in hopes to influence votes and help their candidate win the election. But, not only do they bring money in support of their candidate, money is also brought in and spent in order to attack and take down their opponent. However, spending does not equal votes. Just because a candidate has a lot of money doesn't mean they will be successful. For ex., in 2020, Rep outspent their opponents in 8 races and lost zero. But, Dem outspent their opponents in 13 races and lost 8. In order to reduce campaign costs, contribution limits should be implemented. It is because of contribution limits that a lot of bribery, corruption, and influence takes place in American politics. If these problems were reduced, candidates would not have to worry about competing financially in terms of spending money to raise support. There should also be reporting requirements for soft money and dark money, both of which go through legal loopholes around limits. Lastly, America should take note from other Democratic countries that limit the length of political campaigns and on spending because it would also reduce campaign costs.
Describe the history of voting rights and suppression for people of color from 1865 to the present.
Between 1865-1967, more than 400 states and local laws passed which restricted Black Americans' voting rights. These types of restrictions included literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and felony disenfranchisement. Native Americans were not granted full citizenship until 1924, and voting rights are limited to citizens. In 1890, the Mississippi constitutional conventions begins with the goal of skirting the 15th amendment (which prevented taking away the right to vote based on race) . Black voting rights activists were lynched and murdered by white supremacists for their acts of resistance. In 1944, the Court decided in Smith v Allwright that it was a violation of the 14th and 15th Amendment to prohibit black Americans from voting in the democratic primary. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the civil rights act of 1964 into law. In response came Bloody Sunday, when Black activists were ambushed by white state troopers as they marched to protest for voting rights. In 1965, Johnson finally signed the voting rights act into law, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. In 2006, President George W. Bush extended the VRA for an additional 25 years.
Describe the coalitions in today's Republican and Democratic parties. How do these coalitions affect both political campaigns and policy making?
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are split into coalitions. There are different reasons on both sides for why this is the case. The Republican party is split into two different coalitions with Ron Desantis being Trump's biggest threat to the 2024 candidacy. The reason for this division between the Republican party is that there are those Republicans who state that they would never vote for Trump although they are Republican. For this reason, Ron Desantis is the next largest competitor for the Republican party. However, if Trump does not win the primary and decides to run as a third-party candidate, he may pull in voters who were Republican that would vote strictly for him. Running as a third-party candidate weakens the chances of reelection as we have learned in our lectures and this would also weaken the Republican party because their voters are now being pulled to vote for Trump instead of the Republican party. This will cause for the Democratic party to easily emerge as the victor of the 2024 election. This then leads to the coalitions within the Democratic party. Just as there is a division within the Republican party, similarly there is one within the Democratic party with the problem of our current president Joe Biden and his age being an issue for a large amount of Democrats. Joe Biden is currently 80 years old, and with this being taken into account many individuals believe that he may be too old to run for president in the 2024 election. This is causing for coalitions to form within the Democratic party with Democrats searching for a younger candidate to possibly take his place. Among the candidates are some familiar faces such as governor Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and current vice President Kamala Harris. As with the Republican party, this is causing a division within the Democratic party as they decide who is the best replacement if Joe Biden chooses to not run in the 2024 election. These coalitions within the Democratic and Republican parties are causing for the parties to not fully commit to one specific candidate in case another candidate arises that is highly supported. It is also causing for it to be unclear who will emerge victorious in the 2024 presidential election because people are needing to decide between multiple candidates within each party. As we have also learned in our lecture slides titled "Voting Right," is that although it is unclear who will be the chosen candidate for each party, there is a movement within the Democratic party called "Vote Blue No Matter Who." If Democrats follow along with this ideal then no matter who the candidate for the Democratic party is, the Democratic individuals will most likely still vote for that candidate allowing them to clearly win the election if the same is not done for the Republican party.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Harris
California law required dark money full disclosure as it was struck down by court. The state's Schedule B disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment as applied to AFP and issued a permanent injunction against further collection.
McCutcheon & RNC v. FEC
Eliminated aggregated contribution limits allowing unlimited spending by an individual; it kept campaign/PAC limits and led to proliferation of leadership and advocacy PACS
"High voter turnout is good for democracy." Discuss why people have believed this assumption and why scholars today are re-thinking it.
For decades, low levels of voter participation in U.S. elections have been a source of worry and disappointment. The 2020 presidential election and its aftermath in January show that high political engagement can be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, the 2020 election generated the highest turnout in over 100 years, with two-thirds of eligible voters casting a ballot. On the other hand, the post-election disputes and the Capitol invasion meant that nobody is celebrating the state of American democracy. And the two go together. Historically, high voter engagement in the United States has come during periods of high democratic dysfunction.Why was turnout so high (at least by U.S. standards) in 2020? The easy answer is this was an incredibly high-stakes, competitive election that consumed remarkable mind-space, and both campaigns worked hard to convince Americans that the fate of the nation was up for grabs. For once, the easy answer is also true: High-stakes, competitive elections generate higher turnout, especially among lower-propensity voters. That's because highly competitive, highly consequential elections generate lots of media coverage. Campaigns spend colossal sums of money (like 2020's $14 billion record) on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. And citizens feel like their choice is consequential, and so they vote. High turnout might be a hallmark of a responsive democracy with an engaged and knowledgeable citizenry. However, while the all-or-nothing high-stakes hyper-partisanship of 2020 might be good for high turnout, it is not good for American democracy. Closely contested winner-take-all elections make losers extremely dissatisfied and thus exacerbate polarization Under a different voting system, high turnout might be a sign of democratic health Turnout was high because a lot was at stake High turnout and toxic politics can go together High turnout can go together with satisfied voters—but only under different rn summary, the 2020 election should change how we think about voter turnout. First, it tells us that motivating voters with competitive elections is far more effective than just making it easier to vote, confirming what scholars have long known — the most productive way to increase turnout is to make elections more competitive. Second, it reminds us that increasing voter turnout does not guarantee a higher-quality democracy. Widespread participation may be an important goal, but the reasons for it matter, too. Third, it reveals that increased voter turnout does not benefit Democrats as clearly as both Republicans and Democrats had long assumed. It's at least possible that this will cause partisans on both sides to rethink their assumptions about how to win elections and open up new options for improving the quality of our democracy
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Permitted 18 year olds to vote in all elections
What were the considerations for the Democrats in determining the primary election schedule in 2024? What are the implications of their choice? Why might the Republicans have chosen not to alter the election schedule?
Primary elections are greatly impacted by party politics, state politics, and the donor class. Thus, it is such that the considerations of the Democratic party were how to best balance these three interest groups. Party politics in this case revolved around the incumbent, Joe Biden, and the establishment wing of the party. Joe Biden experienced losses in the traditionally early states of New Hampshire and Iowa to Pete Buttigeig and Bernie Sanders so much so that it appeared he was not going to become the nominee. However, due to the Corona Virus impact and Bidens roaring success in South Carolina, thanks to black caucus establishment and Senator Clyburns endorsements, brought him back into the race. Joe Bidens presidency thus far has been a continuation of corporatism status quo and thus Biden does have a fair amount of donor class support despite low popularity.
What are three actions states have taken since Shelby County v. Holder to limit voting rights?
Shelby County v. Holder was a Supreme Court decision in 2013 that struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws. After this decision, some states took actions that have been criticized as limiting voting rights. Some states passed laws requiring voters to show identification in order to vote. Proponents of these laws argue that they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, while opponents argue that they disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters who may have difficulty obtaining the required forms of ID. For example, in Texas, a strict voter ID law was passed, but an estimated 600,000 registered Texans did not have a suitable ID. Some states have implemented policies that result in voters being removed from the rolls, either because they are deemed inactive or because their information is found to be outdated or inaccurate. Critics of these policies argue that they can result in eligible voters being disenfranchised. For example, in Georgia, a policy was implemented in 2017 that resulted in over 500,000 voters being purged from the rolls. Critics argued that the policy disproportionately affected minority and low-income voters. Some states also consolidated or closed polling places, often in areas with high minority populations, which can make it more difficult for those voters to cast their ballots. Critics argue that these actions can result in long lines and discourage people from voting. For example, in Texas, several counties have closed multiple polling places in recent years. In 2020, Harris County, which includes Houston and has a large minority population, tried to expand the number of polling places to make voting more accessible during the pandemic, but the effort was blocked by the state.
Vote Blue and Win Red
Software/ Internet platforms that allow small donors to donate directly to campaigns. Intergratvate, bring in small donors together, in one place and organized. Centralized small donors allow voters to donate easily.
Describe three proposals put forth by Democrats regarding the 2024 primary election schedule. Which do you think would produce the strongest candidate?
South Carolina was selected as the first primary state followed by New Hampshire, and Nevada. The proposal was approved and under this proposal it would still be possible for a state to hold an early primary but the state would lose half of its delegates. Establish a system when to apply or reapply to a secure date
Reynolds v. Sims
State legislative districts must be roughly proportional or equal in population as it must be considered, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Voter ID Laws
The Voter must be able to present a valid and qualified ID at the voting booth in order to vote or receive a ballot. The acceptable forms for an identification are state issued or a driver license. It is likely to discriminate towards people of color who don't have access towards any acceptable form of identification.
What did the Voting Rights Act of 1965 achieve? Why did the Supreme Court gut it? What are two current proposals?
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 achieved the requirement of "Pre-Clearance", where states that had the history of discrimination needed to obtain approval from the US Department of Justice for redistricting, changes in voting locations and rules. The act also omitted state policies and practices geared toward the discrimination and limitation of African American and other targeted group's voting rights, such as literacy tests. For many years the act proved itself to be successful in intimidating and preventing such discriminated voting policies to be passed, and alerted voting groups and communities of changes in voting policies. The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County v. Holder, as the court deemed the act to be unconstitutional because it uses an old formula, based on forty-year-old data that does not apply to the current needs. It is intact until Congress is able to pass a new formula in replacement of the old Coverage Formula. This means that states are no longer required to obtain "preclearance" or permission from the US Department of Justice before making changes or passing policies regarding voting laws or rights. As an outcome without this protection, states have passed laws regarding voter ID, purged voting rolls, consolidated or closed voting places with little or no notice to voters, and other voting restrictions. One current proposal, named after the civil rights activist John Lewis is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which establishes a new formula or criteria for "Preclearance" and allows voters to challenge voting discrimination in court. The act would modernize how the Voting Rights Acts determines which states and local elections have had patterns of discrimination, make sure that voters are notified of any voting changes at least 180 days prior, and expand the government's ability to send federal observers to voting polls on election day that might be a risk to discrimination. Another current proposal is the Freedom to Vote Act which implements redistricting rules to ban partisan gerrymandering, automatic, online, and same-day voter registration, prohibits purges, gives political protection for local election officials and of ballots post-election, increases election security, and requires post-election audits.
White v. Regester
The case was an important victory for minority voting rights. Court ruled that certain multi-member districts are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment if they dilute the strength of minority voters.
Describe the history and function of the electoral college. Why is it controversial?*
The electoral college was established by the Founding Fathers as part of the Constitution to determine the President and Vice President of the United States. The electoral college is a system that has a long and complex history. The Founding Fathers originally created the Electoral College as an indirect barrier against a national majority having too much power over individual states. Initially, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had proposed various alternatives, such as a direct popular vote of the people. Nevertheless, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention eventually settled on the Electoral College system. Overall, the electoral college combined elements of popular sovereignty with federalism. They wanted an extra layer of "electors" as part of the federal system of checks and balances to prevent a radical mobocracy from gaining control of the new country. There have been various corrective changes throughout time for the electoral college to keep up with the election process. After 1961, the Electoral College system has been functioning the same way. There are 538 electoral votes and the majority of electoral votes required to win is 270. 435 electors represent U.S. House apportionment, 100 electors represent the two U.S. senators from each of the 50 states, and three are the District of Columbia's electors. The Electoral College system is controversial since the loser of the national popular vote can win the Electoral College vote. This has occurred four times in history, most recently in the 2016 election, when Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by a wide margin. A second criticism of the Electoral College is that it has an inherent bias towards smaller states, due to the fact that each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes regardless of population. This can result in smaller states having a disproportionately large impact on the outcome of the election. In addition, the founding fathers who were elites were terrified of what democracy can do and the people. Anti-democratic, inequitable
McConnell v. FEC
Upheld the restrictions on the use of corporate or union treasury funds to finance electioneering communications. Corporations and unions may still finance such communications through their separate segregated funds, and thus the provision does not result in an outright ban on expression. The free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
National Popular Vote
a new plan where states would award their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationwide The National Popular Vote is a state level constitutional amendment that goes into effect when the number of ratifying votes is 270+. No matter what the outcome is, the Candidates Electors pledge the National Popular Vote Winner.
Freedom to Vote Act
a proposed U.S. federal legislation that aims to expand voting rights, increase election security measures, and establish national standards for federal elections. It seeks to address concerns around voter suppression and election integrity by establishing requirements for early voting, mail-in voting, and voter ID. From powerpoint notes: ●Implements redistricting rules to ban partisan gerrymandering ●Automatic voter registration ●Same Day voter registration ●Online voter registration ●Prohibits purges ●Political protection for local election officials ●Protection of ballots post-election ●Increased Election Security ●Requires Post-Election Audits
John Lewis Voting Rights Act
a proposed legislation that seeks to restore key aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and require certain states with a history of voting discrimination to gain federal preclearance before making changes to their voting procedures. It was introduced in response to recent efforts to restrict voting rights. From powerpoint notes: ●Establishes a new formula for Preclearance ●Permits voters to challenge voting discrimination in court 1. Modernize the VRA's formula determining which states and localities have a pattern of discrimination 2. Ensuring that last-minute voting changes do not adversely affect voters by requiring officials to publicly announce all voting changes at least 180 days before an election 3. Expanding the government's authority to send federal observers to any jurisdiction where there may be a substantial risk of discrimination at the polls on Election Day or during an early voting period.
Moore v. Harper
ongoing United States Supreme Court case in which the Court will resolve the dispute over the Independent State Legislature theory. The theory implies that the State Legislatures, not the electors, have the right to appoint electors. The case would even restrict state courts' ability to hear many challenges to elections and state constitutions from setting rules. The decision made in this case would also impact many issues or aspects like gerrymandering and ballot access. ●Independent States Rights Theory - State Legislatures, not the voters, have the right to appoint electors ●Would also limit state courts' ability to hear many challenges to elections and state constitutions from setting rules ●Affects things like gerrymandering and ballot access
19th Amendment
prohibited the US from denying its citizens the right to vote on the basis of sex. Therefore, it finally granted women in America the right to vote.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
prohibits any racial discrimination in voting. It banned the use of literacy tests, and allowed the Justice Department to have more powerful enforcement in areas where there is potential discrimination.
Shelby County v. Holder*
the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws of practice. The court found that the provision was outdated and no longer necessary. ●Coverage Formula unconstitutional because it uses an old formula ●Section 5 unenforceable until Congress passes a new formula ●Congress has not been able to pass such a formula
The Party Decides Thesis
when the party clears the way for one or two candidates by giving them money and endorsements. If voters have a choice, it is between two candidates
