Douglas on History, Tradition, and Voter Registration

Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentuky College of Law, is publishing History, Tradition, and Voter Registration in the Wisconsin Law Review. Here is the abstract. H

istory and tradition are dominating the current Supreme Court, which has invoked history and tradition to curtail some rights, such as abortion, while using it to elevate other rights, such the right to bear arms. Might history and tradition also support expanded rights even if doing so will result in a ruling that seems contrary to the majority's preferred ideological outcome? Current disputes over voter registration restrictions will pose that very question. Many states have recently implemented onerous rules on voter registration, especially targeting third-party voter registration organizations. As this Article shows, the Court should strike down these rules under a faithful interpretation of the history and tradition of voter registration. The Article first discusses the ways in which some states have imposed restrictive registration rules and made it harder for organizations to help voters register. States have enacted citizenship requirements on who may register voters, tight delivery deadlines for completed registration forms, speech mandates for third-party organizations, compensation restrictions for individuals engaged in voter registration, and rules on what voters must present to register to vote. The Article then turns to the history of voter registration, drawing upon primary sources such as archival newspaper records to show that there is a rich history of voter registration drives that date to the beginning of voter registration. There are three significant periods of expanded voter registration through third-party organizations, including during the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, and in the 1990s after Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act. Interested parties and organizations have engaged in voter registration activities for almost as long as there have been registration lists. The Article then evaluates how courts should use this history and tradition. Specifically, because history and tradition support robust third-party voter registration activities, the Court should invalidate new voter registration restrictions as violating organizations’ and voters’ rights. If voter registration is considered a deeply rooted aspect of the election process, then so is the practice of third parties conducting voter registration drives and helping others register to vote. History and tradition are now the primary focus of arguments at the Court. To win, litigants must explain why history and tradition support their contentions. On voter registration, history and tradition demonstrate that eligible voters could easily place their names on the voter list and that organizations could assist in those efforts without hindrance. The Court should invoke this history and tradition to strike down restrictions on voter registration.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Fourth Annual Nomos Conference, Masaryk University: Call For Papers

From Tomáš Havlíček, Masaryk University:

Call for Papers

4^th Annual Nomos Conference at Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia

“Of course, we have all read, and all do read Capital. For almost a century, we have been able to read it every day, transparently, in the dramas and dreams of our history, in its disputes and conflicts, in the defeats and victories of the workers’ movement which is indeed our only hope and our destiny.”

(Althusser, Balibar, Rancière and Macherey, Lire le Capital 1965, 3)

“God is dead; Communism is dead. It is, at best, the legacy code of the Chinese ruling class. But that does not exhaust the imaginal faculty of the subordinate classes, whose vulgar energies may even in this practico-inert world have some surprises in store.”

(Wark, Capital is Dead 2019, 142)

 

Sixty years ago, Reading Capital offered a transformative reading of Marx’s Capital, reorienting the way scholars, activists, and theorists viewed the role of law within capitalist society. For Althusser, Balibar, Rancière, and Macherey, a genuine understanding of Marx’s critique demanded a lens that brought economic and material forces to the forefront, highlighting how law is not a neutral arbiter of justice but a structure deeply embedded in the capitalist mode of production. Law, they argued, functions not simply as a regulatory tool but as a fundamental mechanism through which capital exercises control, manages class conflict, and reproduces its power.

From a Marxist perspective, law is inseparable from the political economy because it arises from, enforces, and perpetuates the relations of production. Under capitalism, legal frameworks are designed to safeguard property rights, enforce contracts, and legitimate private ownership—all of which are essential to the maintenance and growth of capital. Marx’s critique demonstrated that law, rather than standing apart from economic interests, actually facilitates the accumulation of wealth and the entrenchment of class hierarchies. This insight remains profoundly relevant in our own time, as capitalism morphs into new forms and faces systemic crises.

Today, as we grapple with stark inequalities, environmental collapse, and rising authoritarianism, the relationship between law and political economy demands renewed scrutiny. Wark’s declaration that “Capital is dead” reflects a contemporary frustration with the ability of traditional critiques to fully capture the complexities of modern capitalism, which has evolved into a global network of finance, data, and extraction. Yet, as Wark also suggests, the imagination and energies of the subordinate classes remain powerful. This conference takes up the challenge of exploring how Marxist critiques of law can help us understand and resist the transformations of capitalism today. What does it mean to read Capital in a world where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and states, where wealth inequality is extreme, and where legal systems often seem complicit in perpetuating social and environmental injustices?

This conference invites scholars to return to the materialist critique of law within political economy, examining how law continues to serve as a critical tool in maintaining economic power structures. From the foreclosure crisis and austerity measures to labour law and environmental deregulation, the impact of law on economic and social life remains profound. By revisiting Reading Capital’s Marxist approach, we seek to explore law not as an abstract system of rules but as a living, evolving force that both reflects and shapes the contradictions of capitalism.

Key topics discussed include:

1. Illiberalism and Authoritarian Resurgence in Contemporary Constitutionalism

The resurgence of authoritarian and illiberal tendencies in various regions, from Eastern Europe to South America and parts of Asia, reflects a critical shift in global politics. The rise of “illiberal democracies” challenges the assumption that constitutionalism inherently supports liberal democracy. Analysing these developments helps us understand the fragility of constitutional norms and the ways authoritarian leaders can exploit legal mechanisms.

Key questions:

·         How do illiberal regimes use constitutional frameworks to solidify power while undermining democratic principles?

·         In what ways are courts, laws, and constitutional amendments leveraged to stifle dissent and limit civil liberties?

·         What is the role of global legal and political institutions in responding to these shifts?

2. Materialism, New Materialism, and Ecological Redefinitions of Legal-Economic Relations

With the climate crisis and environmental degradation at the forefront of global challenges, legal scholars and economists are increasingly called to rethink economic models that prioritize profit over ecological sustainability. New materialism brings fresh perspectives on the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental systems, potentially inspiring laws that recognize the rights of nature, integrate ecological costs, and reshape economic responsibilities.

Key Questions:

·         How does new materialism redefine the legal-economic relationship by emphasizing non-human actors (e.g., the environment, technological systems)?

·         How is environmental rhetoric co-opted by dominant capitalist ideology to perpetuate existing power structures, and in what ways is law complicit in supporting this 'greenwashing' of capitalism?

·         How does law mediate the economic power of technology companies, whose systems have become infrastructural and almost autonomous within capitalist economies?

·         What new legal structures could emerge to reflect interconnected, ecological models of economy and law?

 

3. The Role of Utopian and Dystopian Imagination in Law and Political Economy

Utopian and dystopian visions allow us to imagine positive or negative legal systems and political scenarios outside the constraints of current neoliberal or capitalist structures. By drawing on both hopeful and cautionary futures, legal and economic scholars can explore radical reforms or protections that address power imbalances, social inequities, and environmental degradation, creating blueprints for societies resilient against authoritarianism and climate catastrophe. We seek to renew the relevance of utopia in legal and economic thought, holding that envisioning alternative futures remains not only necessary but profoundly worthwhile in guiding transformative change toward justice and sustainability

Key Questions:

·         How can utopian or dystopian imagination inform new frameworks for economic justice and legal rights?

·         How does law contribute to, or even accelerate, dystopian realities within capitalist societies?

·         In what ways might speculative futures guide us in addressing today’s crises of inequality, authoritarianism, and environmental decline?

·         What legal and economic principles might underlie a political economy that genuinely respects ecological boundaries, social equity, and human dignity?

4. The Impact of Capitalism’s Crisis on War, Legal Orders, and Global Political Structures

Capitalism’s crisis is a catalyst for both internal and external conflicts, influencing the rise of populism, nationalism, and militarized economies. The impacts on legal orders range from increased domestic repression to contested international norms. Exploring these dynamics can reveal how law is used both to enforce and resist economic power, shedding light on how legal orders adapt or fail in times of systemic upheaval.

Key Questions:

·         How does the contemporary crisis of capitalism—marked by inequality, financial instability, and ecological limits—affect global legal and political structures?

·         What role do militarization and conflict play in sustaining or challenging current economic and legal orders?

·         How do international laws, trade agreements, and intellectual property regimes uphold or exacerbate conflicts in ways that benefit capitalist interests?

·         Can law simultaneously act as an agent of peace while being complicit in the economic incentives that drive wars?

5. Reimagining Sovereignty and Global Legal Frameworks from Law and Political Economy Perspectives

The concept of sovereignty is foundational to modern legal and political systems, yet it is increasingly challenged by the realities of global capitalism, transnational governance, and interconnected crises. Traditional notions of sovereignty, centred on territorial control and centralized authority, often serve to uphold the interests of global capital and state power. At the same time, these frameworks frequently constrain efforts to address border-transcending issues like climate change, labour exploitation, and resource extraction. This theme invites scholars to explore how sovereignty and global legal frameworks can be reimagined through a critical political economy lens that emphasizes material and economic justice over geopolitical dominance and market interests.

Key Questions:

·         In an era where multinational corporations, international trade agreements, and global financial institutions exert immense influence over domestic policies, national sovereignty is often compromised, how do global economic structures undermine or reshape state sovereignty, particularly in developing countries?

·         What alternative forms of sovereignty could accommodate transnational challenges like climate change, migration, and economic inequality?

·         How might reimagining sovereignty through a political economy lens allow for fairer distribution of resources and protection of marginalized populations?

·         What role can international law play in moderating the excesses of global capitalism.

 

Submission Guidelines

We welcome abstracts (200–300 words) for individual papers and panels, that engage critically with the relationship between law and political economy. Interdisciplinary approaches are highly encouraged. Contributions can address theoretical, historical, or empirical dimensions of the topic and may include case studies, comparative analyses, or reflections on praxis.

 

The conference will be held in a hybrid format, allowing for both in-person and virtual participation.

 

Keynote Speakers:

·         Marija Bartl (University of Amsterdam)

·         Werner Bonefeld (University of York)

 

Conference fee: 120 EUR

Deadline for Submissions: 13 April 2025

Notice of Acceptance: 20 April 2025

Conference Date: 6-7 June 2025

Conference Venue: Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia

Please submit abstracts including affiliation to: 458644@muni.cz

 

 

 

 

Guerra-Pujol on Adam Smith's Blind Spot

F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico; University of Central Florida, has published Adam Smith's Blind Spot. Here is the abstract.

This article connects Adam Smith's maxims of taxations-as well as a possible precursor to Smith's maxims: Roussel de la Tour's Richesses de l'etat-with Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan's critique of optimal taxation theory. Among other things, Brennan and Buchanan's critique of the optimality criterion fills an important gap not only in the optimal-tax literature but also in Adam Smith's thought.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.