This book fills a gap in constitutional law by examining the global trend towards the substantive constitutional adjudication of electoral legislation. It explores the premises on which this judicial scrutiny is grounded, seeks to explain the trend, and examines its consequences for representative democracy.
The book offers a comparative analysis of the issue, investigating how the exchange of models and arguments among judges has catalysed the progressive departure from a traditionally deferential approach to electoral norms-an approach that still persists in a few jurisdictions.
To accomplish this, the book delves into the democratic foundations of electoral systems and their evolution. It also explores the methodological choices that constitutional judges face when dealing with electoral legislation. This groundwork sets the stage for an in-depth review of case law in more than fifteen legal systems spanning North and South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Europe. The objective is to identify the underlying concept of democracy that courts aim to promote. The authors critically discuss the varying ideas of democracy evident in each jurisdiction, including the use of constitutional borrowing, and they analyse the effects of judgments on the relationship between courts, representative institutions, and voters.
Given its global scope, the combination of theoretical and practical approaches, and the comprehensive comparative assessment it provides, this work is of interest to academics in the fields of law, political science, and philosophy. It is also relevant for policymakers and judges in constitutional democracies across continents.
This book fills a gap in constitutional law by investigating the global trend towards substantive constitutional adjudication of electoral legislation. On which premises is this judicial scrutiny grounded, what can explain the trend and with which consequences for representative democracy?
So far, scholars have focused their attention on a few countries and on selected judgments, such as the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. This book offers instead a comparative reading of the issue by analysing how the circulation of models and arguments between judges has triggered the progressive overcoming of a traditionally deferent approach towards electoral norms, which still survives in a few jurisdictions.
The book explores the democratic underpinning of electoral systems and their evolution. It explores the methodological choices constitutional judges are confronted with when managing electoral legislation. This prepares the ground for the in-depth review of the case law in thirteen legal systems, across North and South America, Africa, Asia and Europe, with a view to identifying the underlying concept of democracy courts seek to advance. The authors critically discuss the ideas of democracy that can be detected in each jurisdiction. This includes the use of constitutional borrowing, and the effects of the judgments on the relationship between courts, representative institutions and the voters.
Given the global reach, the combination of theoretical and practical approaches, and the comparative assessment provided, this work is of interest for academics in the field of law, political science and philosophy, and for policy-makers and judges in constitutional democracies across the continents.
