Failed Elections and the Legislative Selection of Electors

How do democratic ideals and constitutional provisions of inclusive citizenship and “reasonable classification” of universal rights to combat social oppression and promote social justice get worked out in the crannies of state policies, citizen politics and legislative and legal pronouncements? This article addresses these issues by revisiting the convoluted trajectory of positive discrimination (termed “reservation”) in India as an illustrative and instructive example. It combines an innovative reading of Constitutional Assembly Debates, constitutional provisions, constitutional amendments, and crucial Supreme Court rulings to trace the gradual undoing of constitutional ideals and provisions. An exploration of changing state policies in tune with the imperatives of a neo-liberal Hindu authoritarian regime, and shifting electoral demands of privileged upper castes and classes, allows the article to underscore a radical shift in ethos that has resulted in an interrogation of constitutional provisions for social equality and justice. A lack of consensus on the justifiability of (re)distribution of resources by extending special benefits to the socially suppressed (“backward”) castes and classes of citizens, has laid bare the ambiguities inherent in constitutional ideals and provisions, highlighted the resourceful use of such ambiguities by the socially entitled citizens to disavow caste-based social oppression, and insist on economic weakness that hampers equal opportunity as the fair ground for “reservation.” A shift in emphasis from “social backwardness” of the oppressed to “economic weakness” of the advantaged in the language of the state ratified by the Supreme Court, underscores the undemocratic consequences of democratic provisions. A serious interrogation of the fairness of reasonable classification of equality and the justifiability of distribution on the part of the socially privileged, has served to disavow calls for social justice and recognition of difference by the oppressed, and overturned the basic premise of equal respect that ground liberal theories of social justice and social democracy.

Americans live in a nation which depends for many purposes upon a constitutional system of free expression, with a number of constitutional and statutory elements. ' In addition to the First Amendment, the state of the union requirement, the congressional journal mandate, the audits and accounts clause, and other constitutional provisions, the United States has a collection of fair information practices laws including among others the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and parallel legislation in many states. fair assessment of information policy must contemplate both the constitutional and statutory dimensions of the subject. These elements of the system are interrelated and overlap.2 Madison captured the fundamental role played by the system in making information available when he observed: A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.' The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is appropriately viewed as an adjunct to the constitutional elements of the system envisioned by Madison. The Supreme Court has observed that [t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.4 Both constitutional and statutory provisions are concerned with assuring the capacity of the citizenry to address specific substantive policy issues and with the maintenance of important structural features of the governing framework such as elections and the arrangement of checks and balances.5 In addition to their other essential interrelationships, FOIA and the First Amendment are frequently brought together in litigation involving both constitutional and statutory issues. The Supreme Court plays a vital role in fair information practices because it possesses tremendous discretion in the interpretation of the nature, boundaries, and functions of the system. Consequently, anyone attempting to assess the state of information policy must consider the directions in which the Court is moving in this field. In performing that analysis, one finds. a development which reached full flower in the * The First Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are interrelated elements of the system offree expression. The Supreme Court's power to interpret both the constitutional provisions and the statutes plays a central role in shaping information policy. This article argues that while the Court has moved from a rights-based theory of free expression to a more expansive free-flow approach, it has simultaneously demonstrated deference to government claims for control over information in its interpretation of FOIA and created exemptions to the general free-flow concept in its constitutional rulings. The Court's recent decisions are inconsistent with its own demands that government should protect the free-flow of information needed by the citizenry for self-governance.

Given that political events have substantial effect on new economic policies and economic performance of the country, this article aims to examine the behavior of the investors’ sentiment in terms of implied volatility index trailed by the U.S. presidential elections. The study empirically tests whether the presidential elections in 2012/2016 do contain the important market inclusive information to explain the expected stock market volatility. The findings indicate that investors’ concern was distracted around the presidential elections window, albeit the market performed identically in both the presidential election years. The significant fall in the implied volatility level (post-election period) is the calm before the storm, just wait and watch. The positive estimate uncovers the fact that investor worries were higher before the election day. In particular, the significant estimate of the presidential election debate shows that investors do regard the minutes of the presidential election debates in their portfolio selection. At the two elections era, on the candidacy of both the parties, the empirical result speaks marginally contrasting outcomes and falsifies the presidential election cycle hypothesis of past 29 U.S. election years. Empirical estimates conclude that the presidential elections in 2012/2016 have a strong, significant relationship with investor’s sentiment and stock market performance.

Popular Sovereign Versus Government Institution Generated Constitutional Norms: When Does A Constitutional Amendment Not Amend the Constitution?

We study political elite networks within a framework of signed tem-poral network to investigate the dynamics of coalition formation and polarization during the 2014 Indonesian General Elections. We construct the signed network of inferred relations of agreement or disagreement between Indonesian political ac-tors based on their opinion that is reported by news media during the election. For each temporal network, we detect communities by applying a community detection algorithm for signed networks to identify conflicting groups of political ac-tors, and characterize the identified groups based on party attributes. We visualize the networks and measure political tensions within and between clusters to examine the dynamics of polarization over time. We find that the coalition pattern is absent during the legislative election period, where political actors are more likely to group within their respective party clusters. The intensity of polarization be-tween clusters is relatively lower than the following two periods, with a downward trend of polarization ahead of the legislative election day. The cleavage line between coalition clusters begins to form in the presidential election period and lasts into the post-election period, where the emerged pattern resembles the configuration of party coalitions in the 2014 Indonesian Presidential Election. The process of coalition formation is accompanied by an increase in the intensity of polarization between coalition clusters.KeywordsSigned networksCoalition formationPolarizationCommunity structurePolitical elite networksElection

The event study methodology was applied in this paper in order to determine the effects of the results of the presidential elections in the United States of America on financial sector companies. The analysis focused on three election cycles in which Donald Trump participated as the candidate of the Republican Party. The goal was to determine whether the election results led to the creation of an abnormal return and, if so, what was its sign. The assumption is that the sign of the abnormal return will depend on the outcome of the election, because in general the Republican Party is perceived as the protector of big business, primarily due to the practice of relaxing regulatory and tax solutions in various areas. The research showed that the financial sector reacts to the outcome of the presidential elections and that the reaction is consistent through different election cycles. Republican candidate victories produced a positive abnormal return in the financial sector, while Democratic candidate victory produced a negative abnormal return. All tests confirm the existence of statistically significant returns in the post-election period. In the period before the elections, the situation is somewhat different, because the tests do not always succeed in confirming the statistical significance of abnormal returns. The general trend in the part of the period of events before the election day itself depends on the exit polls, that is, on the rational expectations of the market, so even in that case, a positive return is recorded when the polls give a bigger chance to the Republican candidate, that is, a negative return is present when the polls favour the Democratic candidate.

Parliamentary elections of May 26th, 1996 in Albania were held in a deeply polarized political environment; they were associated with multiple tensions during the pre-election period, the Election Day and post-election period as well. The voting process and the results of the elections were opposed by the oppositions and criticized by the international institutions. Election processes in post-communist Albania have been associated continuously with multiple legal, procedural, administrating problems, but May 26th elections, as never seen before, were declared publicly and decisively as against election standards, Government’s responsibilities and political interventions in the process as stated by the international observers. According to them, 32 out of 79 election law’s articles were violated. The elections qualified as “a step backwards to the democratization process”, deepened the political crisis in Albania and ignored major problems already prevailing in Albania. This paper attempts to describe, analyze and evaluate the parliamentary elections held in May 26th, 1996 as seen from a legal, procedural and political point of view and their effects on political crisis in Albania. To reach this objective, the present descriptive - analytical paper was prepared through researching, synthetizing and analyzing efforts and based on documents and reports of Albanian and international institutions, studies conducted by Albanian and foreign scholars, testimonials and interviews of the protagonists, etc.

The number and activities of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) have recently grown in spread and scale in Nigeria. This paper examines the implications of the activities of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) for the conduct of 2023 general elections in Nigeria across the three stages of the electoral cycle – the pre-election period, the election period, and the post-election period. It profiled these groups and posits that their motivations, presence and operations increased the risk of violence and insecurity during election days. The paper argues that desperate politicians incentivize such NSAGs to cause violence in opposition’s stronghold as a veritable strategy of voter suppression, discontinuation, postponement or inconclusive elections. It proffers actionable recommendations that should form part of a robust, comprehensive security plan to deal with the risks posed to future elections by NSAGs in Nigeria.

The aim of this research is to analyze the implementation of digital transformation in the use of Sirekap in Pilkada 2020 district of Natuna. This type of research is qualitative, using a single case study research strategy, which involves an individual in one company or office, namely the Natuna Regency KPU office. The research design used is qualitative research. The acceleration of digital transformation is essential in the operational process of acquisition and as a support tool while minimizing risks from the early stages of the elections, the election day, and the post-election period. (post-election). The over-implementation of the Sirekap in the election of the head of the Bupati district and the Deputy Bupati District of Natuna district in 2022 increases transparency and accountability to increase public confidence in the results of the election calculations. The Sirekap application makes the working time of the KPU more effective than manual calculations. The KPU, with the presence of the Sireap application, also makes the information disseminated to the public no less rapidly than the survey agency because the region can monitor the data entered in the place of direct voting. The Sirekap application also has a high level of rigor and minimizes the error rate of voting calculation

Surviving Elections: Election Violence and Leader Tenure

The House of Representatives is, fundamentally, a majoritarian institution. A simple majority can do anything it wants, even changing the entire rules of the House through the Constitutional provision that Each House shall determine the Rules of its Proceedings. Despite this power, the House has maintained extensive parliamentary rights for the minority party. This work examines why the Majority may allow the Minority a continued role in lawmaking. The historical development of the House rules is examined and compared to current practices in the House. This leads to an understanding of how the House became the institution it is today. The House rules evolved slowly over its first century, until finally arriving at the surprisingly stable set of modern rules. Although some of the changes the House has made appear strange at first sight, the models developed here explain many of them. Having identified key features of the rules of the House, a model of a legislature is constructed. Consideration of bills can be described as endogenous agenda formation -- each action that the legislature takes is proposed by a legislator. This process is modeled as a game, where the legislature's rules describe an agenda tree. Even minimal assumptions about the rationality of legislators provide predictions about how bills will be modified by the amendment tree. These floor consideration models, however, only predict what bills the legislature will pass for a given set of rules. To understand how the rules of the House developed, the modeled legislature is permitted to choose its rules (which amendment tree it will use). If the bill has been exogenously identified, so the legislature is choosing a special rule for the bill, the amendment tree it adopts will restrict the proposers. If the bill will be proposed endogenously, the legislature will adopt standing rules resembling those of the House. Further predictions are generated by combining this model with specific assumptions: depending on the type of issue being considered, certain rules should never be adopted. This analysis suggests that the House generally does not consider one-dimensional or distributive issues, but instead must deal with multi-faceted issues.

Adding Up the Costs and Benefits of Voting by Mail

This study gives an in-depth examination of the bicameral legislatures of Australia, Pakistan, and India. It investigates the structure, functions, and dynamics of the upper and lower chambers of various countries’ legislative bodies. The study delves into the historical context, constitutional provisions, and roles of the bicameral systems in each nation's governance. It also explores the similarities, distinctions, and main issues that these legislative systems face. The study draws on various primary and secondary sources, including scholarly articles, books, official reports, and constitutional texts, to comprehensively analyze these federations’ bicameral legislatures.

“Due process,” unmodified by the words “substantive” or “procedural,” has long marked the obligation of federal and state governments to protect individuals against arbitrary and unfettered uses of state power. Constitutional guarantees of rights to remedies and access to court date back centuries and, during the twentieth century, were reread to include all persons regardless of race, gender, and class. Moreover, the need for governments to legitimate their own decisions propelled interpretations of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in conjunction with evolving interpretations of equal protection to ensure that courts provided even-handed treatment. Thus, on occasion, the Supreme Court has concluded that court fees had to be waived, subsets of litigants needed to be provided with lawyers, and failures to pay fines or child support could not result in detention unless judges inquired into the “ability to pay.” Judges also assessed the “fairness” of procedures in courts and agencies and at times required revamping modes of decision making. Moreover, due process was the touchstone of the “fairness” of state courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over absent litigants and application of their law to out-of-state parties. Thus, in various contexts, and at times in conjunction with other constitutional and common law provisions, due process had come to denote the relationship between government and individuals that entails respect for people expressed through procedures and decision making that are fundamentally “fair.” Due process has thus been adaptive, pluralistic, and Janus-faced—looking to protect individuals in their encounters with government while shoring up the authority of governments to enforce their laws. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, rejecting the federal constitutional right to an abortion, raises concerns about this account of due process. Our contribution to this Symposium is to sketch the elaboration of due-process principles that, built in earlier eras, came to apply to people who had been denied these protections. We analyze how the Supreme Court has, through the interaction of due process and equal protection, begun to address inadequate litigation resources and asymmetries between individuals and their adversaries in courts and agencies. We sketch the intersection of due-process norms with other constitutional provisions and the embeddedness of aspirations for non-arbitrary and fair treatment across diverse doctrinal categories including family, criminal, banking, and administrative law, as well as in other common and civil law systems. Yet, as Dobbs makes plain, commitments to due process and equality can be undermined. Through clarifying the stakes in debates about due process in a variety of its forms, we hope to encourage mobilization across the political spectrum to reject the potential for a frightening arbitrariness that members of the current Supreme Court seem poised to countenance. Renewed commitments are needed to insist on practices of bounded lawfulness, equality, and fairness that due process has encoded and should continue to promote.

“The law” is actually a collection of rules and principles from various sources. The courts play a major role in the development of the law, particularly in interpreting constitutional and statutory law and determining the constitutionality of statutes and administrative rules. A major focus of media law is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and equivalent state constitutional provisions. Under the principle of judicial review, the courts have the power to declare statutes and regulations invalid because they violate the provisions of these constitutional provisions. The most authoritative court in the United States is the U.S. Supreme Court. Each state also has their own supreme court which is the ultimate authority on state law issues. Beneath these courts are a network of federal and state trial and appeals courts, all of which have rules of procedure and for acceptance of evidence. There are some major differences between civil and criminal cases because of the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. A major issue for the media is whether the law recognizes a “reporter’s privilege” that protects journalists from being forced to reveal the identity of sources who have been promised confidentiality or to disclose unpublished materials. This principle has also been applied in some cases to identification of anonymous online posters and commenters. Because trials absorb considerable time and resources, more judges and attorneys are using alternative ways of resolving disputes. For criminal cases, the answer to the ever-growing backlog is plea bargaining. But efforts to create a system for resolution of complaints against the media other than the courts were not successful. The various sources of law are readily accessible, but it is important that researchers understand how the various sources relate to each other, and examine these connections in order to get a full understanding of what the law is.