Report Claims Imbalance in Law School Election Law Programs Fuels Litigation
A new report alleges a nearly 7-to-1 liberal-to-conservative ratio among election law professors, impacting how election cases are decided.
A report examining election law courses and faculty at 198 accredited law schools has found a significant liberal advantage, with conservative professors outnumbered nearly 7-to-1. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which authored the report, claims this imbalance influences election litigation outcomes across the United States.
According to the report, 76 liberal or left-leaning professors teach election law compared to only 12 conservative or right-leaning professors. Many of these election law centers are situated in universities located in liberal states such as New York and California. PILF President J. Christian Adams stated that this disparity leads to policy shifts, changes in election law, and the dismissal of election integrity statutes due to the overwhelming presence of lawyers with opposing viewpoints.
The foundation analyzed curriculum at top law schools and characterized approximately 70% of election law classes as being taught by professors with a left-leaning bias. The report suggests that these courses often train students to challenge measures like voter ID laws, citizenship verification requirements, redistricting maps, and voter-roll maintenance, which are generally aimed at bolstering election integrity.
Graduates from these programs frequently move on to work for liberal nonprofits and major law firms, where they engage in litigating these specific issues. The report highlights course descriptions that reference "voter suppression," racial and partisan gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, the Electoral College, and "election subversion." Specific examples cited include courses at Harvard, the University of Michigan, and UC Berkeley that reportedly address social justice, racial inequity, and proposals to reform the Electoral College.
Adams drew a parallel between the academic environment and courtroom realities, describing instances in redistricting cases where the opposing side deployed a significantly larger number of lawyers. He noted that "anytime voter ID hangs in the balance, the left sends an army," while conservative groups defending election integrity lack comparable resources. Adams suggested that establishing election law centers at law schools in conservative-leaning states could help address this imbalance, proposing that state legislatures could fund such initiatives.
The report clarifies that it does not assert that all identified professors with left-leaning ideologies advocate for specific legal outcomes or that ideology is the sole determinant of case results. Instead, PILF argues that the imbalance affects the pool of students and lawyers entering the field of election litigation. This leads to conservative attorneys having fewer specialized colleagues, academic resources, and less accumulated experience when defending election-integrity laws.
The foundation contends that this creates a self-perpetuating cycle where left-leaning professors influence students' initial understanding of election law, these students then enter voting-rights organizations and law firms, and ultimately become the legal representatives challenging election-integrity laws in court. PILF concludes that this imbalance provides a nationwide advantage in terms of available lawyers, research, and resources for one side of election litigation.