Our Work

This Article introduces the concept of “gerrylaundering” to describe mapmakers’ efforts to lock-in their favorable position by preserving key elements of the existing map. Gerrylaundering and gerrymandering both serve anti-competitive ends, but they do so through different means. Unlike gerrymandering, gerrylaundering requires no conspicuous cracking and packing of disfavored voters. Instead, it involves what this Article dubs locking and stocking: Mapmakers lock in prior district configurations to the extent possible and stock each new district with one incumbent. Based on a review of redistricting practice in all fifty states, this Article concludes that gerrylaundering is widespread and that self-serving mapmakers commonly combine gerrylaundering and gerrymandering techniques in varying proportions to achieve their preferred results.

Amid ongoing concerns about foreign electoral interference and fake news, digital platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have been rolling out new political advertising policies for the 2020 election cycle. These emergent policies address what sort of ads are permissible, who can run them, how particular audiences can be targeted, and what disclosures and disclaimers must be made. This Essay aims to draw attention to the rise of platform self-regulation of political advertising and to encourage inquiry into its implications.

This Article challenges the prevailing, bifurcated approach to voting and spending law. Its central thesis is that the law's disparate treatment of voting and spending is unjustified. Voting and spending are, at bottom, two methods of participating in the electoral process. Conceiving of them as two aspects of a broader right to participate -- a right the Supreme Court recently articulated, but did not develop, in McCutcheon v. FEC -- offers a principled basis to harmonize voting and spending law and reorient election law discourse.