Heather Gerken

  • February 1, 2010

    With the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearing on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" scheduled for tomorrow, another hearing on a controversial issue is being overlooked by many.

    The Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling in Citizens United v. FEC has drawn the ire of some on Capitol Hill. That case -- and how Congress might blunt its force before the mid-term elections -- is the topic of tomorrow's hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, entitled "Corporate America vs. The Voter: Examining the Supreme Court's Decision to Allow Unlimited Corporate Spending in Elections."

    The witness list includes two ACSblog guest contributors: Professor Heather Gerken of Yale Law School and Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, whose immediate reaction to the decision is available here

    [image via www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org]

  • June 10, 2009
    Guest Post


    By Heather Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School & former Clerk to Justice David Souter (1995-96)

    Adam Gopnik once observed that "Paris is a struggle between its pompous official culture and its matchless ... commonplace civilization." That description applies even more aptly to the Supreme Court. Officially, it is an institution cloaked in formality. It is also an institution that takes itself extremely seriously, with its strongest opinions pronounced when it thinks another institution - Congress in passing Commerce Clause legislation or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the Florida Supreme Court in its rulings during the Bush v. Gore litigation - is treading on the court's privileges. Only the court's pompous official culture could explain why the majority in Bush v. Gore - in which the court shut down the Florida recount in an opinion now widely considered an embarrassment - could have claimed that their intervention was an "unsought responsibility." This is not an institution cursed with self-awareness.

    Justice Souter, however, is at the core of the court's matchless commonplace civilization, something that may explain why he dissented in each of those cases. He is a judge's judge, a courtly lawyer who manages to be both a serious intellectual and a pragmatic decision-maker. He reads everything, is open to new ideas and new arguments, and yet is not swayed by the political winds that waft through the court.

  • June 4, 2009
    The Democracy Index
    Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It
    By: 
    Heather Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School
    A recent MIT study reveals that during the 2008 election, millions of voters were prevented from voting due to registration problems, with millions more deterred from casting a ballot because of long lines or other obstacles. Those numbers are roughly comparable to the numbers of voters who encountered problems voting during the 2000 election.

    You may now be scratching your head in wonder. Every major media outlet reported that the 2008 election ran smoothly, so what gives? And didn't we fix this problem already? The 2000 election was a crisis so great that it prompted Fidel Castro - admittedly not a man cursed with self-awareness - to threaten to send election monitors to Florida. How is it possible that so little has changed?

  • May 6, 2009

    Amid news of Justice David Souter's pending retirement and predictions that the Supreme Court stands poised to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Professor Heather Gerken is lauding Souter's understandings of race and politics.

    "Souter is perhaps the least politically connected person on the Court, and his home state of New Hampshire is a racially homogenous area that hasn't had much of a record either way with the Voting Rights Act," writes Gerken, a frequent ACS contributor. "Despite his lack of experience, Souter has carved out a position on the Voting Rights Act that is both more nuanced and more pragmatic than his brethren's."

    Gerken proceeded: 

    It is odd for the conservatives to demand that the state be color-blind when voters are decidedly not. In a world of racial bloc voting, race-blind districting is simply a recipe for disempowering racial minorities. But the dominant story of race told by the liberals on the Court - one that treats racial minorities as "objects of judicial solicitude, rather than as efficacious political actors in their own right," in the words of Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan - similarly misses something important. It misses the idea that putting representatives of the minority community into positions of power gives racial minorities the power to protect themselves, so that eventually they no longer need be wards of the Court.