In the more than 350 lawsuits challenging election law procedures prior to the 2020 election, federal courts rarely found that the political question doc-trine limited their role. Yet, the doctrine continues to prompt judicial abstention in other legal contexts, including political gerrymandering, foreign affairs, and impeachment. This Note examines why the Equal Protection exception announced in the canonical political question doctrine case Baker v. Carr has swallowed the core of its holding—that courts should decline to exercise juris-diction over a case if any one of six factors render it a “political question.” The answer is likely the intervening Anderson-Burdick doctrine, which eviscerates the political question doctrine and the separation of powers rationales for which it stands. This Note will posit that the political question doctrine should be reinvigorated to restore the courts’ proper role in election law disputes over voting procedures. Baker’s first factor—which counsels courts to decline juris-diction where there is a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate political department—is especially pertinent insofar as the Elections Clause assigns control over the times, places, and manners of elections to state legislatures, checked by Congress. The modern textualist Court should consider apply-ing this Baker factor, and others, to restore the proper balance between the branches vis-à-vis election law.

Keep Reading Restoring the Proper Role of the Courts in Election Law: Toward a Reinvigoration of the Political Question Doctrine