American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

InthewakeoftheColdWar,democracyhasgainedthestatusofamantra.Yetthereisnoconsensusabouthowtoconceptualizeand measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. In this prescriptive article, we argueforanewapproachtoconceptualizationandmeasurement.Wefirstreviewsomeoftheweaknessesamongtraditionalapproaches. Wethenlayoutourapproach,whichmaybecharacterizedas historical, multidimensional, disaggregated,and transparent.Weendby reviewing some of the payoffs such an approach might bring to the study of democracy.

/pdf/conceptualizing-and-measuring-democracy-a-new-approach-om3dplpbln.pdf

Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach

The last major narrative review of the employment interview was published over 10 years ago. Since then, 278 studies have examined numerous aspects of the interview. This review summarizes and critically examines this recent research. A framework is developed that partitions research into social, cognitive, individual difference, measurement, and outcome factors. This organizing framework allows an examination of trends over time and facilitates identification of gaps in the empirical literature. Within each of these major factors, each research topic is identified, defined, and reviewed. For each topic, the results of the previous 3 narrative reviews are briefly summarized, recent research is reviewed and critiqued, and directions for future research are identified.

Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fhep.2008.1.pdf

Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders

This book is the first in a planned trilogy by Pippa Norris on challenges of electoral integrity to be published by Cambridge University Press. Unfortunately too often elections around the globe are deeply flawed or even fail. Why does this matter? It is widely suspected that such contests will undermine confidence in elected authorities, damage voting turnout, trigger protests, exacerbate conflict, and occasionally lead to regime change. Well-run elections, by themselves, are insufficient for successful transitions to democracy. But flawed, or even failed, contests are thought to wreck fragile progress. Is there good evidence for these claims? Under what circumstances do failed elections undermine legitimacy? With a global perspective, using new sources of data for mass and elite evidence, this book provides fresh insights into these major issues.

Why Electoral Integrity Matters

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix INTRODUCTION Why We Need a Democracy Index 1 CHAPTER 1: The Perverse Politics of Election Reform Why (We Think) Elections Are Run Badly, and What to Do about It 11 CHAPTER 2: The Promise of Data-driven Reform 38 CHAPTER 3: The Politics of Reform and the Promise of Ranking 66 CHAPTER 4: Is the Game Worth the Candle? 91 CHAPTER 5: Getting from Here to There in Miniature Making the Democracy Index a Reality 108 Conclusion: Getting from "Here to There" Redux 132 AFTERWORD 137 NOTES 143 INDEX 173

The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It

The core divide in federalism centers on sovereignty. The Supreme Court consistently invokes sovereignty, and scholars just as consistently deplores its invocation. But even as scholars regularly announce the death of sovereignty, they remain haunted by its ghosts. The scholars who urge the Court to move beyond sovereignty still accept the vision of state power put forward by federalism’s champions, one that involves states presiding over their own empires rather than administering someone else's. Both sides of the debate thus subscribe to an exit account of federalism - the notion that the best thing a democracy can do for its minorities is to give them a chance to make policy separate and apart from the center. While exit is a perfectly sensible way to conceptualize parts of "Our Federalism," it doesn't capture all of it. And because constitutional theory remains all but entirely rooted in an exit account, it remains disconnected from the many parts of "Our Federalism" where exit is not to be had. Within these institutional arrangements, minorities are part of a complex amalgam of local, state, and federal actors who administer national policy. The power minorities wield is that of the servant, not the sovereign; the insider, not the outsider. Here minorities exercise a muscular form of voice - the power to make federal policy, not just complain about it. If we orient federalism around voice and not just exit, we would find that there are new things to say about federalism. Here I name three. First, reorienting federalism around voice rather than exit would push federalism all the way down, turning our attention to the administrative units long neglected by federalists and their localist counterparts. Second, it would push us to conceptualize the vertical checks on power in the same way we think of the horizontal checks and thus help us build a "checks and balances" model of how the center and periphery interact. Third, orienting federalism around voice rather than exit would help us develop a more convincing nationalist account for valuing "Our Federalism," one that would show how decentralization promotes rather than undermines the core values associated with the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

/pdf/foreword-federalism-all-the-way-down-2bupvp6dym.pdf

Foreword: Federalism All the Way Down

On a conventional understanding of dissent, dissenters have two choices with regard to governance: act moderately or speak radically. To the extent that would-be dissenters want to govern - to wield the authority of the state - they must bargain with their votes to gain concessions from the majority. Would-be dissenters who deploy this strategy take part in an act of governance, but it is governance of a moderate sort. Alternatively, would-be dissenters can speak radically by freely stating their views in a dissenting opinion or minority report. In doing so, dissenters sacrifice the chance to be part of the governing majority; they speak with a critical rather than authoritative voice. What is missing from the usual account of dissent is a third possibility: that would-be dissenters could act radically. We have trouble envisioning dissent taking the form of a governance decision. Our conventional intuition is that dissenting means speaking truth to power, not with it. After all, we might think, if would-be dissenters had enough votes to control the outcome of a decisionmaking process, they wouldn't be dissenters anymore. Dissenting by deciding seems like a contradiction in terms. The main reason we overlook the possibility of dissenting by deciding is that we tend to conceive of democratic bodies as unitary. Where decisionmaking power is disaggregated - as with juries, school committees, or local governments - global minorities can constitute local majorities. Disaggregated institutions can thus allow dissenters to decide, to act on behalf of the polity. One example of dissenting by deciding occurred when San Francisco spent several weeks marrying gay and lesbian couples. The principle embodied in San Francisco's decision was no different than the argument found in editorials, judicial dissents, and ongoing public debates. What was different was the form dissent took. Dissenting by deciding can also take place when a school board mandates the teaching of creationism or a jury engages in nullification. These decisionmakers subscribe to the same set of commitments held by individuals whom we would unthinkingly term dissenters. But they express disagreement not through conventional means, but by offering a real-life instantiation of their views. Dissenting by deciding, then, should be understood as an alternative strategy for institutionalizing channels for dissent within the democratic process. But because dissent has not been conceptualized in these terms, scholars have not given adequate thought to which form of dissent is preferable, and when. This paper takes a first step in that direction. The payoff for thinking about dissent in the terms proposed here is a more comprehensive set of categories for thinking about how best to institutionalize it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID692682_code603.pdf?abstractid=692682&mirid=1

Dissenting by Deciding

/pdf/understanding-the-right-to-an-undiluted-vote-3pg3mb32i7.pdf

Understanding the Right to an Undiluted Vote

For decades, we have debated whether “political safeguards” preserve healthy relations between the states and the federal government and thus reduce or eliminate the need for judges to referee state-federal tussles. No one has made such an argument about relations among the states, and the few scholars to have considered the question insist that such safeguards don’t exist. This Article takes the opposite view and lays down the intellectual foundations for the political safeguards of horizontal federalism.If you want to know what unites the burgeoning work on horizontal federalism and illuminates the hidden logic of its doctrine, you need only know one fact: Lawyers hate spillovers. Whether it is a state’s decision to license same-sex marriage or set high emissions standards or maintain lax gun-ownership rules, we worry when one state’s regulations affect residents in another state. And just as most scholars aspire to prevent spillovers, most look to the courts to fix the problem.The current state of the law and literature makes clear why no one has thought to develop a safeguards account of horizontal federalism to match the one that dominates debates over vertical federalism. Why bother with political safeguards if politics are the problem and the judiciary is the solution?In this Article, we don’t just question the consensus against spillovers but offer an affirmative account as to why much interstate conflict can or should be left to the free play of politics. Our argument emphasizes the democratic possibilities associated with spillovers and looks to vertical federalism as a model for thinking about how the states ought to interact with each other. Spillovers, after all, occur just as routinely between the state and federal government as they do between states. State-federal friction, however, is understood to be both a problem and a valuable part of a well-functioning democracy. The same should be true of horizontal federalism. Our goal should not be to suppress friction, but to harness it — to shut down damaging spillovers while allowing productive ones to run their course.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2446214_code101581.pdf?abstractid=2446214&mirid=2

Heather K. Gerken

Papers

The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It

Foreword: Federalism All the Way Down

Dissenting by Deciding

Understanding the Right to an Undiluted Vote

The Political Safeguards of Horizontal Federalism