2014Election Law Journal Rules Politics and PolicyRequires access

Congressional Authority to Protect Voting Rights After Shelby County and Arizona Inter Tribal

Franita Tolson

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This essay attacks the narrow view of congressional authority to regulate voter qualifications adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder and Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, and argues that Congress has significant authority over voter qualifications under Article I, Section 5, which allows it to judge the elections of its members. Although Congress exercises its authority under this provision after the election has taken place, it remains a source of authority that the Court should have considered in its attempt to craft competing paradigms of state and congressional power over elections in these decisions. By examining election contests from the 47th Congress, the argument herein sheds light on the scope of congressional authority over elections by analyzing Congress's willingness to intervene in state level disputes over congressional seats. A review of the historical record reveals that the House of Representatives often overturned elections in which state or federal law was not complied with in determining the winner, even in disputes that dealt primarily with the qualifications of electors. Both Shelby County and Arizona Inter Tribal tell a woefully incomplete story about congressional authority over elections, ignoring that the House's authority to resolve election contests under state and federal law can be just as powerful as the state's authority to determine the qualifications of electors ex ante.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This essay attacks the narrow view of congressional authority to regulate voter qualifications adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder and Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, and argues that Congress has significant authority over voter qualifications under Article I, Section 5, which allows it to judge the elections of its members. Although Congress exercises its authority under this provision after the election has taken place, it remains a source of authority that the Court should have considered in its attempt to craft competing paradigms of state and congressional power over elections in these decisions. By examining election contests from the 47th Congress, the argument herein sheds light on the scope of congressional authority over elections by analyzing Congress's willingness to intervene in state level disputes over congressional seats. A review of the historical record reveals that the House of Representatives often overturned elections in which state or federal law was not complied with in determining the winner, even in disputes that dealt primarily with the qualifications of electors. Both Shelby County and Arizona Inter Tribal tell a woefully incomplete story about congressional authority over elections, ignoring that the House's authority to resolve election contests under state and federal law can be just as powerful as the state's authority to determine the qualifications of electors ex ante.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This essay attacks the narrow view of congressional authority to regulate voter qualifications adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder and Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, and argues that Congress has significant authority over voter qualifications under Article I, Section 5, which allows it to judge the elections of its members. Although Congress exercises its authority under this provision after the election has taken place, it remains a source of authority that the Court should have considered in its attempt to craft competing paradigms of state and congressional power over elections in these decisions. By examining election contests from the 47th Congress, the argument herein sheds light on the scope of congressional authority over elections by analyzing Congress's willingness to intervene in state level disputes over congressional seats. A review of the historical record reveals that the House of Representatives often overturned elections in which state or federal law was not complied with in determining the winner, even in disputes that dealt primarily with the qualifications of electors. Both Shelby County and Arizona Inter Tribal tell a woefully incomplete story about congressional authority over elections, ignoring that the House's authority to resolve election contests under state and federal law can be just as powerful as the state's authority to determine the qualifications of electors ex ante.

Key concepts: Political science, State (computer science), Law, Voting, Supreme court, Power (physics), House of Representatives, Election law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Congressional Authority to Protect Voting Rights After Shelby County and Arizona Inter Tribal — Research Paper | ScholarLens