Election Reform Topic Paper

Submitted by Justin Kirk of UNL

Introduction

With the resurgence in authoritarianism around the world, increasing Russian support for

radical right-wing anti-democratic governments, 1 and Chinese crackdowns on democratic rights

in Hong Kong, 2 there is increasing talk of the collapse of the international liberal order and the

western model for democracy. 3 Combined with the increasing number of states restricting voting

rights, partisan gerrymandering, and challenges to the validity of the 2020 election, these trends

point to a worrying decline in representational democracy both at home 4 and abroad. The central

mission of intercollegiate debate is to better prepare students to be deliberators, decision makers,

and democratic agents in a pluralistic society. 5 This topic would not only inform how we talk

about election policy, democratic politics, and the balance of federal responsibilities to protect

the right to vote, it will inject democratic pedagogy into the very debates on the topic. 6 With a

variety of philosophical and political differentiations on what democracy is, 7 how it best

functions, 8 and for whom it should be reserved or provided to, the topic area is rife with

opportunities for debaters to invest personal agency and experience into the topic and it’s

research.

A voting rights topic would have the potential to be a broad AND deep topic

simultaneously. Distinctions between types of reforms (expansion of rights or restriction of

democratic practices) and the importance of different conceptions of democracy (social,

universal, instrumentalist, etc.) means that affirmatives will have a wealth of options for

creativity and flexibility. Negative teams will get access to a set of core arguments that circulate

around important social and domestic trends in the real world. The importance of federal/state
balance around the questions of voting rights exploded after the 2020 elections. A cadre of

radical anti-democratic state legislatures have enacted extremely revisionist election laws that

undermine access, transparency, and representation in large swaths of the country. Election

reform both at the legislative and juridical levels is extremely controversial. Courts cases would

have to contend with court legitimacy arguments and counterplans that use the lower courts or

state supreme courts to rule. Legislative cases would need to contend with the politics and

midterms disadvantages. There are also disadvantages to any form of imbalanced federal and

state powers, disadvantages to the demographics of expanding voting rights, and ways to target

the processes by which voting reform in carried out by state and local governments.

Additionally, counterplans abound on the topic. From the states, to the courts, to the

ability to engage in specific mechanism debates, the topic would get a healthy dose of both agent

and mechanism competition throughout the year. Critical ground is equally ripe. From the radical

pedagogy work of people like Giroux to the more postmodern examinations of democratic values

systems from Derrida, there are a wealth of critical sources to draw on for critiques of the liberal

philosophy, democracy as a concept, or representational politics. A topic that embraces this

challenge and offers students the opportunity to discuss current trends in democracy provides a

rich resource for our community to research and debate at a time of crisis. If we see debate as the

deliberative training forum we speak so much about in writing and in conversation, then debating

democracy in a time of democratic fragility seems pressing and urgent. In what follows, I

provide a brief discussion of the topicality issues on a voting rights topic, then I examine

different wording options and directions the community could offer after a discussion. Next, I

look at possible affirmative cases under each of the topic types and provide some examples.
Finally, I examine potential neg ground and offer ideas for policy and critical arguments from the

negative.

Topicality Discussion

There are two parts to this part of the paper, a discussion about several word choices, then

a quick summary section of terms of art and other elements of limiting and expanding the scope

of the topic. First, we can look at the difference between expand and increase when it comes to

rights, protections, or regulations. Whichever way the community wants to go with the topic, the

difference between expand and increase seems to be a central aspect of that discussion. Second,

there is the distinction between legal and constitutional protections that will be discussed, and

concluded that the distinction is one without a pertinent difference. Third, I examine the

difference in restrictions on voting rights and regulations of voter suppression and how those two

topics would differ. Finally, the end section of this part will provide a quick review of terms of

art that will be utilized in any discussion of the topic areas, scope, and themes. Hopefully, this

section will show that a topic about voting rights will be both educational and creative grounds

for debate.

Expand vs. Increase

Expand versus increase debates probably fall along the bias one has for the type of

resolution. Expand seems best suited to terms like voting rights, access to voting, protections for

voting. While increase seems more naturally suited to arguments like restrictions. Topic

wordings that increase the extent of or scope of voting rights would be said to “expand” those

rights to cover more people. Topics could “expand” election reform efforts but “increase”
election reform seems more natural in the topic wordings. Expand is more often used in the

literature around voting rights and increase around election reform efforts. According to

Merriam-Webster 9, expand means to “increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of” and

Macmillan 10 defines it as “to make something become larger in size.” Oxford’s definition is

equally informative:

…to become greater in size, number or importance; to make something greater in size,
number or importance Metals expand when they are heated. Student numbers are
expanding rapidly. a greatly expanded version of his earlier book A child's vocabulary
expands through reading. expand to do something The waist expands to fit all sizes. The
gallery's focus will expand to include the work of modern artists. expand (from
something) to something By 1999, the event had expanded from two to three days.
expand something They are continuing to expand the range of goods and services they
offer. to expand a programme/service In breathing the chest muscles expand the rib cage
and allow air to be sucked into the lungs. There are no plans to expand the local airport.
expand something into something The short film is being expanded into a full-length
documentary. 11
Fundamentally, the definition of expand works best when one considers the concept of voting

rights and constitutional protections for that right. If the topic were to focus on including more

people in the process, like affirmatives that give former and current felons access to the ballot,

voting for immigrant populations and green card holders, or an affirmative that declared a

constitutional right to vote, then expand seems more naturally to fit within the scope of this

version of the topic. Increase, on the other hand, means to become greater in size, number, or

intensity 12 and Oxford defines it as “to become greater in amount, number, value, etc…to

increase dramatically/substantially.” 13 Clearly, these definitions are focused on quantitative

increases that are measurable by observation and evaluation. So the primary distinction between

the two is the division between qualitative and quantitative measurement (for the most part!) A

creative and resourceful debater will always be able to find definitions that argue the opposite,

but these seem to be the trends among the major dictionary definitions.
In summary:

Arguments for Expand

• Its qualitative. Means that you can construct affirmative cases that expand rights by
making voting easier, more effective, or more just. Offers the opportunity for creative
affirmatives to deal with voting rights in a variety of ways (i.e. removing long wait times
as a qualitative expansion of voting rights).
• It fits with topics like constitutional protections, voting rights, access, etc.
Arguments against Expand

• Qualitative increases are hard to prove outside a class expansion (i.e. including felons or
undocumented immigrants as eligible).
• We typically use terms like increase in debate. Changing to expand without an explicit
connection to something like constitutional protections (i.e. coverage) seems unlikely to
produce good debates.
Arguments for Increase

• Its quantitative – forces affirmatives to defend an increase of the number of people

allowed to vote, opportunities for voting, regulations imposed by the government on the
states, etc.
• It fits better with topics like campaign finance, voter suppression, election reform.
• It does not require affirmatives to prove a qualitative increase, only a quantitative
one. We overturned X number of state laws, we increased voter access by Y number of
voters, etc.
Arguments against increase

• Increase constitutional protections makes grammatical sense, but is often used as

expand constitutional protections (i.e. see focus on scope or extent)
Protections vs. Rights

This debate seems somewhat irrelevant unless one explicitly desires a legal topic.

Dunigan defines “voting rights” as “a set of legal and constitutional protections designed to

ensure the opportunity to vote in local, state, and federal elections for the vast majority of adult

citizens.” 14 In this definition, which is somewhat representative of the lot of them, rights are

defined as legal and constitutional protections – so the two terms are synonymous and would
imply legal or constitutional changes to protect the right to vote in public elections. A topic that

had the federal government expand constitutional and/or legal protections for voting rights would

be one that drives the debate toward legislative and judicial solutions for the growing problem at

the state level. It could include wide ranging affirmatives such as overrule Shelby to the more

traditional John Lewis voting rights act. On the other hand, topics that would lean more towards

regulating bad behavior by the state through legislative fixes would probably shy away from this

debate entirely and instead focus on a term like voter suppression. Overall, this part of the

topicality debate seems somewhat irrelevant as the terms define one another and both provide a

similar scope to the topic area.

Restrict v Regulate

According to Collins, a restriction is an official rule that “limits what you can do or that

limits the amount or size of something.” 15 Others define it explicitly through the lens of

limitation and restraint. 16As you will see below in the topic wording section, increase

restrictions against voter suppression in many ways is a viable topic. States are increasing voter

suppression efforts now, the federal government can and should regulate state behavior that

infringes on the right to vote, etc. Again, this distinction mainly lies upon which direction you

want the topic to take. Do you want to increase protections by regulating gerrymandering, or do

you want to restrict campaign financing? Restrict voter suppression, restrict partisan

gerrymandering, restrict campaign finance. Of course, a regulation is an official rule that limits

what you can do, so the distinction is less crucial than the terms of art in the resolution. Either

term will allow affirmatives’ flexibility sufficient to be creative in their approach to the topic.

Other relevant definitional questions

 Democracy - According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the definition

democracy is overly broad and probably should not be included in the topic wording:

The term “democracy”, as we will use it in this entry, refers very generally to a method of
collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at
an essential stage of the decision-making process. Four aspects of this definition should
be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which we mean
decisions that are made for groups and are meant to be binding on all the members of the
group. Second, we intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and
decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in
families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and
global organizations. The definition is also consistent with different electoral systems, for
example first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation. Third, the definition is
not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of
democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the
definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality
required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere
formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament
where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust,
including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building
leading up to the vote. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It
may involve direct referenda of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and
policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting
representatives to make the decisions. 17
It produces far too much possibility for bidirectionality, effects topicality, and affirmatives that

are in the direction of the status quo. Additionally, as others have noted, 18 the definition of

democracy often contains normative assumptions about what democracy values, what kind of

freedom orients the society, and to what extent the people are treated as intrinsically valuable

individuated units, or agglomerated into a mass of unfeeling outputs.

Electoral reform - Electoral reform is broad and covers a wide range of anti-democratic

practices in public elections. It is explicitly directed at combatting anti-democratic practices and

expanding institutional protections for the equal right to vote. This seems like a good term to

include in mechanisms for the topic. The official and widespread denotation of electoral reform
is to increase protections, decrease anti-democratic practices, and ensure transparency and

accountability in elections. As Funk and Wagnalls states, it is the:

elimination of dishonest, corrupt, or undemocratic practices and procedures in the

conduct of public elections. Historically, electoral reform laws have sought to prevent
abuses, include in the electorate categories of citizens previously barred from voting, and
improve procedures for selecting candidates and arranging elections, so that voters may
register an effective choice. Among practices that have been the objects of electoral
reform are actual or threatened physical violence against voters; concealed pressures such
as might be exercised by an employer or government authority; bribery, through gifts of
money or other rewards for voting as directed; impersonation of duly qualified voters by
others, called personation; voting more than once, called repeating; shifting of voters
from districts where a desired result is assured to others where it is doubtful, called
colonization; and various forms of Ballot fraud, including the stuffing of ballot boxes and
the deliberate miscounting of ballots that have been cast. More recently, especially in the
U.S., reform efforts have often concentrated on encouraging voter participation, limiting
the advantages of incumbency, and reducing the influence of money in politics. 19
If the community felt that electoral reforms was a sufficiently limiting term, there would be

ample affirmative ground to argue for ending many restrictive practices that undermine

constitutional protections for voting. Additionally, it would produce fairly interesting topicality

debates, as negative teams would need to prove that the object of scorn targeted by the

affirmative fell within the range of negative practices election reform is meant to address.

Suffrage – this terms seems somewhat moot depending on how the resolution is crafted.

Voting rights sounds better when written into the resolutions and conceptually means the same as

suffrage. Jensen describes it explicitly as “the right to vote” 20 and Casey excludes the notion that

it is solely a privilege of the few, but rather a process of “expansion and enfranchisement” 21

towards the citizenry. Cornelison and Yanak also see suffrage more than just a static state, but a

process towards universality of the franchise. 22 Brown expands that definition to include the

exercise of voting and the process by which people get to the voting booth and are able to freely

exercise the practice. 23

 Right to vote – While there is no explicit constitutional protection for the right to vote,

the practice of voting is regulated by laws and constitutional protections which makes it subject

to other terms of art discussed above. 24

Voting – typically defined as a “method of registering collective approval or

disapproval,” 25 voting itself can also refer to voting in unions, voting on shareholder events, and

voting at your PTA meetings. Clearly not limiting enough for a term of art to be included in the

topic.

Gerrymandering – defined as a specific form of voter suppression or voter intimidation,

gerrymandering typically takes two forms: political and racial. Duignan defines it as a “tactic

that is sometimes treated as a violation of voting rights…gerrymandering ensures that a targeted

minority group or political party will be permanently underrepresented in a state legislature or in

Congress relative to its absolute numbers in the state.” 26 Given the number of solvency

advocates on the issue (see below), it would be a term that could be used to limit the resolution

as part of a list, or be a good affirmative ground area within a broader, non-list, topic. Given that

gerrymandering can be defined through racial, ethnic, or linguistic minorities 27 it would make

the topic particularly ripe for discussions on race, culture, and discrimination in democracy.

Voter Suppression – defined as “any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose

purpose or practical effect is to reduce voting, or registering to vote, by members of a targeted

racial group, political party, or religious community.” 28 This term would be the broad version of

the topic as opposed to a more narrow one under a “gerrymandering” limiter or list of actions. It

would provide expansive affirmative ground and allow teams to counteract practices such as

voter intimidation, robocalling, events like January 6th etc. It would also allow for broader

discussions of religious intolerance and racism in voting practices.

While this list is not comprehensive, it does provide a decent overview of the way that certain

terms could limit or expand the scope of the topic. As I cover below, a lot of this depends on the

types of action that the community wants to take. Do we want a topic that increases regulations

and restrictions on states’ ability to engage in voter suppression, or do we want to expand the

constitutional protections for voting through access or eligibility? The ability to craft a topic

more specifically designed to ask the questions and have the debates about election reform that

we want should make this topic appealing to the community more broadly.

Resolution Wordings

The community has the opportunity to provide two different directions for the topic. One

set of wordings could be based on voting rights expansion. This would include ballot access

affirmatives, removal of lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons, constitutional protections

to the vote, and an increase in the numbers of and types of individuals with voting rights.

Another set of wordings could be based on restricting anti-democratic practices in the electoral

process. This would include affirmatives that end gerrymandering or institute more equitable

redistricting processes, institute new anti-corruption and campaign finance measures,

affirmatives that outlaw voter id laws, ban partisanship in electoral commissions, institute

harsher penalties for intimidation and coercion, among many others. Lists will obviously allow

for a more narrowly defined topic, but given the different proposals provided in the solvency

advocates section, there is a broad range of creative and nuanced affirmatives that would produce

exciting and interesting debates on the topic. As a third option, there are multiple supreme court

cases that could offer a potential legal direction to the topic.

Potential “Expand” topics

• The United States federal government should substantially increase/expand

constitutional protections for voting rights in public elections in the United States.

• The United States federal government should substantially increase/expand access

to the right to vote in public elections in the United States.

• The United States federal government should substantially increase/expand voting

rights in public elections in the United States in one or more of the following areas:

popular suffrage, constitutional protections, ballot access.

Restrict topics

• The United States federal government should substantially increase electoral

reform in public elections in the United States.

• The United States federal government should substantially increase restrictions on

voter suppression in the United States.

• The United States federal government should substantially increase/expand

electoral reform in public elections in the United States in one or more of the following

areas: voter suppression, partisan and/or racial gerrymandering, constitutional

protections, campaign financing, and/or election access.

• The United States federal government should increase/expand electoral reform

that s voting rights in public elections in the United States in one or more of the following

areas: popular suffrage, constitutional protections, ballot access, gerrymandering.

Potential Courts topic!!

 While the legislative aspects of this topic are interesting, there is also the strong potential

for a robust topic involving supreme court cases and election reform. Over the past 20 years,

there have been significant rollbacks in federal power and jurisdiction over the election process,

and even abrogation of judicial review in questions of partisan gerrymandering. Shelby County is

a great example of a court case that is ripe for an overturn, impacts broad swaths of the topic

area, and has a robust legal discussion about the merits and demerits of the decision. The Voting

Rights Act of 1965 is a centerpiece of protections against racial discrimination and overturning a

key decision that gutted the preclearance restrictions would generate many potential advantages

for the affirmative. Rucho looked at mail-in balloting and ballot harvesting cases, so would be an

excellent area to research for methods of collectivization and organization in elections. Citizens

United needs no introduction. Crawford was essential in delivering to state legislatures the power

to gerrymander their opponents out of power permanently. All of these would be topical

affirmatives under some of the resolutions above. Most either decreased voting rights, or

decreased constitutional and legal protections for voting. The list of cases is obviously not

complete, but gives the community an idea of the flexibility and creativity that a supreme court

topic would provide.

• The United States supreme court should overturn one of the following cases: Shelby

County v. Holder (2013), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Citizens United v. Federal

Election Commission (2010), Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008).

The following section is an appendix to this paper with citations for affirmative arguments,

citations for core negative ground arguments, and advantage areas that are possible under an

election reform topic. It is my sincere hope that we take the opportunity to debate a central

question of our democracy, how do we save what is left of it?

 Solvency Advocates
State Action Restriction Rights Now
Laws like those in Georgia will restrict voting rights for black voters
"Georgia’s Proposed Voting Restrictions Will Harm Black Voters Most". 2022. Brennan
Center For Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/georgias-
proposed-voting-restrictions-will-harm-black-voters-most.
The in voting restrictions is nationwide
"Voting Laws Roundup: February 2021". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2021.

Courts Restricting Now – Congress Key

Duignan, Brian. "voting rights". Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Dec. 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/voting-rights. Accessed 31 January 2022.

Federal reform key – States restricting rights now

Federal Action is necessary – states are restricting minority rights to vote now
Brennan Center for Justice. The Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of Color.
(2022). Retrieved 31 January 2022, from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

Voting Access/Discrimination Affs

Pass the Freedom to Vote or John Lewis Voting Rights Acts
Solvency advocate
Brennan Center For Justice. "Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021". 2022.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021.
Advantage area - It would solve for discrimination
Andrew Garber, "Debunking False Claims About The John Lewis Voting Rights Act". 2022.
Brennan Center For Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/debunking-false-claims-about-john-lewis-voting-rights-act.

VOTER ID Aff
Solvency Advocate
Henry Rose, How the Supreme Court Diminished the Right to Vote and What Congress Can Do
About It, 75 Nat'l Law. Guild Rev. 22 (2018).
“As with state literacy tests, Congress can enact laws that seek to prevent or remedy the
unconstitutional applications of state voter identification laws. This power extends to suspending
their use in federal and state elections because they have been applied in a racially discriminatory
manner. Congress could prohibit states from requiring voters to present identification
documentation as a qualification for casting a ballot. Such a prohibition would prevent states
from enacting voter identification laws, which suppress voter turnout, 104 without evidence that
in-person voter fraud is a widespread problem in American elections. Congress should act to
make it easier for Americans to vote, not more difficult?
Advantage area - Voter ID laws are discriminatory
Kuk, John, Zoltan Hajnal, and Nazita Lajevardi. 2022. “A Disproportionate Burden: Strict
Voter Identification Laws and Minority Turnout.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 10 (1): 126–
34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280.
They specifically hurt black and latinx voters
Fraga, Bernard L, and Michael G Miller. 2021. “Who Does Voter ID Keep from Voting?”
The Journal of Politics, July, 716282. https://doi.org/10.1086/716282.
They disproportionately affect black voters
Henninger, Phoebe, Marc Meredith, and Michael Morse. 2021. “Who Votes Without
Identification? Using Individual‐Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict
Voter Identification Laws.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 18 (2): 256–86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12283.
Barreto, Matt A., Stephen Nuño, Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Hannah L. Walker. 2019. “The
Racial Implications of Voter Identification Laws in America.” American Politics Research 47
(2): 238–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18810012.
Advantage Area - Voter ID laws have a chilling effect on turnout
Grimmer, J., & Yoder, J. (2021). The durable differential deterrent effects of strict photo
identification laws. Political Science Research and Methods, 1-17. doi:10.1017/psrm.2020.57
 Souls to the Polls
Restrictions on Sunday voting are discriminatory against black voters
Brennan Center For Justice. "Georgia’s Proposed Voting Restrictions Will Harm Black
Voters Most". 2022. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/georgias-
proposed-voting-restrictions-will-harm-black-voters-most.
Specifically, these restrictions cause people to abstain from voting
Herron, Michael C., and Daniel A. Smith. “Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting
Early Voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election.” Political Research Quarterly 67, no. 3
(September 2014): 646–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912914524831.

Wait Times Affirmative

Long wait time disproportionately affect voters of color
Hannah Klain, Kevin Morris, Max Feldman, and Rebecca Ayala, (2020). “Racial
Disparities in Election Day Experiences,” Brennan Center for Justice at New York University
School of Law, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-
06/6_02_WaitingtoVote_FINAL.pdf
Wait times are longer in communities of color
Chen, M. Keith, Kareem Haggag, Devin Pope, and Ryne Rohla. 2019. "Racial Disparities In
Voting Wait Times: Evidence From Smartphone Data". doi:10.3386/w26487.
Voting wait times amount to unequal treatment
Cottrell, David, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. “Voting Lines, Equal Treatment,
and Early Voting Check-In Times in Florida.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, (August 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440020943884.

Election Financing Affs

Public Election Funding
Solvency Advocate
Tim Lau, "Citizens United Explained". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained.
In the short term, a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United
is extremely unlikely, and regardless, it would leave many of the problems of big money in
politics unsolved. But even without a full reversal of Citizens United in the near future, there are
policy solutions to help combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of
transparency in the U.S. campaign finance system. First, publicly funded elections would help
counter the influence of the extremely wealthy by empowering small donors. Specifically, a
system that matches small-dollar donations with public funds would expand the role of small
donors and help candidates rely less on big checks and special interests. In recent years, public
financing has gained support across the United States. As of 2018, 24 municipalities and 14
states have enacted some form of public financing, and at least 124 winning congressional
candidates voiced support for public financing during the 2018 midterm election cycle.

Increase Transparency or Regulations on Funding

Solvency Advocate
Tim Lau, "Citizens United Explained". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained.
Lawmakers on the national, state, and local level can also push to increase transparency in
election spending. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced several times in
Congress, would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements, enabling voters to know
who is trying to influence their votes. Congress could also pass stricter rules to prevent super
PACs and other outside groups from coordinating directly with campaigns and political parties.

FEC Reform Aff

Solvency Advocate
Tim Lau, "Citizens United Explained". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained.
Fixing the U.S. elections system will also require fixing the FEC. Long dysfunctional thanks to
partisan gridlock, the FEC is out of touch with today’s election landscape and has failed to
update campaign finance safeguards to reflect current challenges. For example, FEC rules do not
even include the term “super PAC,” and it has declined to find violations or even open an
investigation in high-profile allegations of coordination. The agency’s failure to enforce federal
disclosure laws helped allow dark money to pour into U.S. federal elections since 2010.

Redistricting Affs
Gerrymandering Aff
Congress should end racial and political gerrymandering advocate
Michael C. Li, Harry Isaiah Black, Peter Miller, and Chris Leaverton, "Redistricting: A
Mid-Cycle Assessment". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
work/research-reports/redistricting-mid-cycle-assessment.
Will Congress Act in Time? As gloomy as the news about this decade’s new maps is, this
redistricting cycle is unusual in that the rules for map drawing still could change as a result of the
Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. The bill would transform a broken redistricting process by
creating uniform national rules for drawing congressional districts. These include strengthened
redistricting protections for communities of color and — for the first time in American history —
a strong, judicially enforceable ban on partisan gerrymandering at the federal level.49 The bill
also would speed up litigation of redistricting cases.50 Courts would be required to expedite
these cases and would be given expanded powers to postpone primary elections or create
temporary maps.51 Appeals would also be expedited, and only in limited circumstances could a
court allow a map found to be discriminatory to be used while an appeal is pending.52 To ensure
that the worst gerrymanders are quickly flagged for review, the bill would create the equivalent
of a rapid test for assessing a map’s partisan effects. Maps would be analyzed using the results of
the last two presidential and last two U.S. Senate elections in the state. If the map produced a
high rate of partisan bias, as defined in the statute, in two or more of the four elections, it would
be rebuttably presumed to be an illegal gerrymander and could not be used unless and until the
state successfully rebutted the presumption in litigation.53 The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis
Act would similarly strengthen protections for communities of color in redistricting. 54 States
with a recent history of discrimination would once again be required to have their redistricting
plans and other election law changes preapproved by either the U.S. Justice Department or a
panel of three federal judges in Washington, DC, a process that resulted in Texas’s redistricting
plans being blocked last decade.55 The bill also would expressly clarify that minoritycoalition
districts are protected under the Voting Rights Act.56 If the bill passes, it would amount to the
most sweeping reform of the redistricting process in the country’s history, ensuring greater racial
as well as partisan fairness. If Congress acts quickly, the bill could even be enacted in time to
impact the maps used in the 2022 midterm elections. Time is running short, however. The
primary election cycle will soon be underway in earnest. If Congress does not pass the bill in
coming weeks, its benefits will likely have to wait until the 2024 election cycle.
Its been declared outside the scope of the Supreme court recently – this provides UQ
for courts affs
Duignan, Brian. "gerrymandering". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Oct. 2019,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering. Accessed 31 January 2022.

Shelby County Affirmative

Duignan, Brian. "voting rights". Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Dec. 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/voting-rights. Accessed 31 January 2022.
Tokaji, Daniel P. “Responding to Shelby County: A Grand Election Bargain.” Harvard Law and
Policy Review 8, no. 1 (2014): 71-108.

Blacksher, James; Lani Guinier. “Free at Last: Rejecting Equal Sovereignty and Restoring the
Constitutional Right to Vote: Shelby County v. Holder.” Harvard Law & Policy Review 8, no. 1
(2014): 39-69.
Elmendorf, Christopher; and Douglas Spencer. “After Shelby County: Getting Section 2 of
the VRA to do the Work of Section 5.” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series. July 3,
2014. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414652.

Emenaker, Ryan. “Preclearance May Be a Blunt Instrument, but Bailout Is a Sharpening

Stone.” Supreme Court of the United States Blog. February 13, 2013.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/shelby-county-v-holderpreclearance-may-be-a-
bluntinstrument-but-bailout-is-a-sharpening-stone/.
Mooppan, Hashim. “Shelby County v. Holder: The Ineffective Scattershot Defense of Section
5.” Supreme Court of the United States Blog. February 19, 2013.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/the-ineffective-scattershotdefense-of-section-5/.
Price, Zachary. “NAMUDNO's Non-Existent Principle of State Equality.” New York University
Law Review 88 (April 2013): 24-40.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/NYULawReviewOnline-88-1-Price_0.pdf.
Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. “The South after Shelby County.” The University of Chicago Law
School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 451. October 2013.
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu.libproxy.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context
=public_law_and_legal_theory.

Advantage Areas
Democracy –
S. Y. Quraishi, THE GLOBAL STATE OF DEMOCRACY 2021: Building Resilience in a
Pandemic Era, 2021 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance,
https://www.idea.int/gsod/sites/default/files/2021-11/the-global-state-of-democracy-2021_1.pdf
Federalism –
David Schulz - 104 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes 41 (2020) - Voting Rights and the 2020 Election:
A New Judicial Federalism for the Right to Vote
Keena, A., Latner, M., McGann, A. J. M., & Smith, C. A. (2021). Gerrymandering the
States: Partisanship, Race, and the Transformation of American Federalism. Cambridge
University Press.
Human rights
Christiano, Thomas, 2011, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy: An
Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39(2):
142–176. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x
Christiano, Thomas, 2015, “Self-Determination and the Human Right to Democracy”,
in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo
Renzo (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 459–480.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0026
Innovation
Acemoglu, Daron, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson, 2019,
“Democracy Does Cause Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 127(1): 47–100.
doi:10.1086/700936
Soft Power
S. Y. Quraishi, THE GLOBAL STATE OF DEMOCRACY 2021: Building Resilience in a
Pandemic Era, 2021 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance,
https://www.idea.int/gsod/sites/default/files/2021-11/the-global-state-of-democracy-2021_1.pdf
Climate Change
Peter Erickson, January 21, 2021, "Democratic Reforms Will Determine How Successful The
US Administration Can Be On Climate". 2022. SEI.
https://www.sei.org/perspectives/democratic-reforms-us-administration-climate/.
Tim Lau, July 1, 2021, "Why The Climate Crisis Demands Democracy Reform". 2021. Brennan
Center For Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/why-climate-
crisis-demands-democracy-reform.
Judicial Independence
S. Y. Quraishi, THE GLOBAL STATE OF DEMOCRACY 2021: Building Resilience in a
Pandemic Era, 2021 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance,
https://www.idea.int/gsod/sites/default/files/2021-11/the-global-state-of-democracy-2021_1.pdf
Inequality
Erikson, Robert S., 2015, “Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness “, Annual Review of
Political Science, 18: 11–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706
Racial Justice
Kevin Morris Peter Miller Coryn Grange. "Racial Turnout Gap Grew In Jurisdictions
Previously Covered By The Voting Rights Act". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/racial-turnout-gap-grew-jurisdictions-
previously-covered-voting-rights.
Critical affirmative research
Winters, Joseph. "Afro-Pessimism." In Critical Terms in Futures Studies, pp. 5-11. Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham, 2019.

Charles “Chip” P. Linscott. "All lives (don't) matter: The Internet meets Afro-pessimism and
Black optimism." Black Camera 8, no. 2 (2017): 104-119.
Anderson, Elizabeth, 2006, “The Epistemology of Democracy”, Episteme, 3(1–2): 8–22.
doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
Goodin, Robert E. and Kai Spiekermann, 2019, An Epistemic Theory of Democracy, Oxford:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823452.001.0001
Hannon, Michael, 2020, “Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy”, Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 101(3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624
Landa, Dimitri and Ryan Pevnick, 2020, “Representative Democracy as Defensible
Epistocracy”, American Political Science Review, 114(1): 1–13.
doi:10.1017/S0003055419000509
Giroux, Henry A. "Education, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Age of Pandemics."
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 21, no. 4 (2021)
 Core Neg Ground

States CP
Democracy Docket. "24 States That Improved Access To Voting This Year". 2021. Ht
tps://www.democracydocket.com/news/these-24-states-improved-access-to-voting-this-year/.
Joshua A. Douglas, The Right to Vote Under State Constitutions, 67 Vanderbilt Law Review 89
(2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol67/iss1/1

State Courts CP
Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University
of Memphis, "How State Courts – Not Federal Judges – Could Protect Voting Rights". 2020.
The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-state-courts-not-federal-judges-could-
protect-voting-rights-148748.
Constitutional Amendment CP
Laura Williamson and Brenda Wright, "Why America Needs A Right-To-Vote Amendment |
Demos". 2020. Demos. https://www.demos.org/policy-briefs/why-america-needs-right-vote-
amendment.
Politics DA
Sabrina Eaton, cleveland.com, “Oversight or overreach? Voting bill sparks controversy in
Congress,” March 25, 2021, https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/03/oversight-or-overreach-
voting-bill-sparks-controversy-in-congress.html
Stephen Collinson, CNN. 2022. "Analysis: Biden Puts It All On The Line In Voting Rights
Battle". CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/biden-voting-rights-legislative-
legacy/index.html.
Lisa Hagen, Democrats Eye Pivot to Voting Rights With Biden Spending Package Stalled in
Senate,” US News and World Report, https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-
15/democrats-eye-pivot-to-voting-rights-with-biden-spending-package-stalled-in-senate,
December 15, 2021.

Federalism DA
Hannah Jacobs Wiseman, Samuel Wiseman, and David Landau, Federalism, Democracy,
and the 2020 Election, 99 Tex. L. Rev. (Online) 96 (2021).

Johnathan Turley, "Democrats' Election Bills Ignore The Founders' Principles". 2021. Thehill.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/566044-democrats-election-bills-ignore-the-founders-
principles.
Goelzhauser, G., & Konisky, D. M. (2019). The State of American Federalism 2018–2019:
Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency. Publius: The Journal of
Federalism, 49(3), 379-406.
Tolson, F. (2018). The equal sovereignty principle as federalism sub-doctrine: A reassessment
of Shelby County v. Holder. In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy (pp.
171-186). Routledge.
Justin Weinstein-Tull, Election Law Federalism, 114 Mich. L. Rev. 747 (2016). Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol114/iss5/2

Potential Critical Alternatives

Pevnick, Ryan, 2020, “The Failure of Instrumental Arguments for a Human Right to
Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 28(1): 27–50. doi:10.1111/jopp.12197
Pasternak, Avia, 2018, “Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs,
46(4): 384–418. doi:10.1111/papa.12132
Delmas, Candice, 2018, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil, Oxford:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001
Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels, 2016, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections
Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior), Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Brownlee, Kimberley, 2012, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592944.001.0001
Guerrero, Alexander A., 2010, “The Paradox of Voting and the Ethics of Political
Representation”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(3): 272–306. doi:10.1111/j.1088-
4963.2010.01188.x
Brownlee, Kimberley, 2004, “Features of a Paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience”, Res
Publica, 10(4): 337–351. doi:10.1007/s11158-004-2326-6
Brownlee, Kimberley, 2007, “The Communicative Aspects of Civil Disobedience and Lawful
Punishment”, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1(2): 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11572-006-9015-9
Markovits, Daniel, 2005, “Democratic Disobedience”, Yale Law Journal, 114(8): 1897–1952.
Caplan, Bryan, 2007, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 End Notes

1
"PUTIN'S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY". 2022. Govinfo.Gov. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
115SPRT28110/html/CPRT-115SPRT28110.htm.
2
Feldstein, Steven. 2022. "China’s Latest Crackdown In Hong Kong Will Have Global Consequences". Carnegie
Endowment For International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/07/09/china-s-latest-crackdown-in-hong-
kong-will-have-global-consequences-pub-82264.
3
Sarah Repucci and Amy Slipowitz, "Democracy Under Siege". 2022. Freedom House.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege.
4
Michael Waldman. "A Year Of Crisis For Our Democracy". 2022. Brennan Center For Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/year-crisis-our-democracy.
5
Hogan, J. Michael, Jessica A. Kurr, Michael J. Bergmaier, and Jeremy D. Johnson, eds. Speech and debate as civic
education. Vol. 15. Penn State Press, 2017.
6
Mitchell, Gordon R. "Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate." Argumentation and
Advocacy 35, no. 2 (1998): 41-60; Greene, Ronald Walter, and Darrin Hicks. "Lost convictions: Debating both sides
and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens." Cultural studies 19, no. 1 (2005): 100-126; Leek, Danielle R.
"Policy debate pedagogy: a complementary strategy for civic and political engagement through service-learning."
Communication Education 65, no. 4 (2016): 397-408; Shaffer, Timothy J., Nicholas V. Longo, Idit Manosevitch,
and Maxine S. Thomas, eds. Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning for democratic engagement. MSU Press,
2017; Giroux, Henry A. "Education, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Age of Pandemics." Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 21, no. 4 (2021).
7
Talisse, Robert B. A pragmatist philosophy of democracy. Routledge, 2013; Ellian, Afshin, and Bastiaan
Rijpkema, eds. Militant Democracy-Political Science, Law and Philosophy. Springer International Publishing, 2018;
Wolin, Sheldon S. "Democracy in the Discourse of Postmodernism." In Fugitive Democracy, pp. 300-315. Princeton
University Press, 2018; Arseni, Alexandru, and Veronica Pozneacova. "The Democracy Vs Totalitarianism in the
Political Philosophy." Culture and History 1, no. 2 (2021): p1-p1.
8
Arneson, Richard. "Democracy is not intrinsically just." In Political Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century, pp.
181-198. Routledge, 2018; Tilman, Rick. "The Neoinstrumental Theory of Democracy." In Evolutionary
Economics, pp. 427-449. Routledge, 2019; Ween, David Anders. "Epistocracy’s Competence Problem: An
Instrumentalist Defense of Democracy." PhD diss., Ohio University, 2021; Landwehr, Claudia, and Arndt Leininger.
"Instrumental or procedural democrats? The evolution of procedural preferences after democratization." Political
Research Exchange 1, no. 1 (2019): 1-19; Gunn, Paul. "Against epistocracy." Critical Review 31, no. 1 (2019): 26-
82; Frega, Roberto. "The normativity of democracy." In Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy, pp. 63-99.
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
9
Merriam-Webster, 2022 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expand
10
"EXPAND (Verb) American English Definition And Synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary". 2022.
Macmillandictionary.Com. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/expand.
11
"Expand Verb - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation And Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary At
Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com". 2022. Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/expand.
12
Merriam-Webster, 2022 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase
13
"Increase_1 Verb - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation And Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
At Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com". 2022. Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/increase_1?q=increase.
14
Duignan, Brian. "voting rights". Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Dec. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/voting-
rights. Accessed 31 January 2022.
15
Collins dictionary 2022, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/restriction
16
Vocabulary.com, 2022, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/restriction
17
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Democracy, Jul 7, 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/
18
Ivison, Duncan, and Ivison. "Democracy." Encyclopedia of Political Theory, edited by Mark Bevir, Sage
Publications, 1st edition, 2010. Credo Reference,
http://libproxy.unl.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sagept/democracy/0?institutionId=
3833. Accessed 31 Jan. 2022; Democracy. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, [s. l.], p. 1;, 2018.
Disponível em: https://search-ebscohost-
com.libproxy.unl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=funk&AN=de035300&site=ehost-live. Acesso em: 31 jan. 2022.
19
Electoral Reform. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, [s. l.], p. 1;, 2020. Disponível em: https://search-
ebscohost-com.libproxy.unl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=funk&AN=el023600&site=ehost-live. Acesso em: 31
jan. 2022.
20
Jensen, Cory. "Suffrage." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, Macmillan US, 1st edition, 2016.
Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/macusg/suffrage/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed
31 Jan. 2022.
21
Casey, Paula. "suffrage." Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics, Lynne E. Ford, Facts On File, 2nd
edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/fofwomen/suffrage/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed 31 Jan. 2022.
22
"Suffrage." The Great American History Fact-Finder, Pam Cornelison, and Ted Yanak, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd
edition, 2004. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmgahff/suffrage/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed 31 Jan. 2022.
23
Brown, Antonio. "suffrage." Encyclopedia of American Government and Civics, Michael A.and Han Genovese,
and Lori Cox, Facts On File, 2nd edition, 2017. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/fofgac/suffrage/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed 31 Jan. 2022.
24
Edward, Still, and Edward. "Right to Vote." The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, edited by David
Schultz, and John R. Vile, Routledge, 1st edition, 2005. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sharpecla/right_to_vote/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed 31 Jan.
2022.
25
"voting." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Paul Lagasse, and Columbia University, Columbia University Press, 8th
edition, 2018. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/columency/voting/0?institutionId=3833. Accessed 31 Jan. 2022.
26
Duignan, Brian. "voting rights". Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Dec. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/voting-
rights. Accessed 31 January 2022.
27
Duignan, Brian. "gerrymandering". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Oct. 2019,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering. Accessed 31 January 2022.
28
Duignan, Brian. "voter suppression". Encyclopedia Britannica, 2 Dec. 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/voter-suppression. Accessed 31 January 2022.