A new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) asserts a significant ideological imbalance within the pipeline of election law education, suggesting it impacts how election cases are decided. The study, which examined all 198 ABA-accredited law schools, found that liberal professors in election law vastly outnumber their conservative counterparts, creating a "dangerous imbalance," according to PILF President J. Christian Adams.
The report states that liberal professors outnumber conservative ones nearly 7-to-1 in election law courses, with 76 liberal professors compared to 12 conservative ones. Many of these election law centers are situated in universities located in traditionally blue states such as New York and California. PILF characterizes approximately 70% of election law classes as being taught by professors with a left-leaning ideological bias.
According to the report, this disparity shapes how students are introduced to election law, with curricula often focusing on topics like "voter suppression," racial and partisan gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, the Electoral College, and "election subversion." The foundation argues that this educational environment trains students to challenge measures such as voter ID laws, citizenship verification requirements, and voter-roll maintenance.
PILF contends that these law school graduates then move into liberal nonprofits and major law firms, where they frequently litigate election-related issues. Adams stated that this concentration of lawyers on one side of the ideological spectrum leads to a practical advantage in court. He described instances where the left brings a significantly larger number of attorneys to hearings, outnumbering conservatives by a ratio of five, six, or even seven to one.
"There are so many left-wing lawyers in election law that it creates policy outcomes, election law changes, adapts, and election integrity statutes get struck down because there’s so many lawyers on the other side," Adams told Fox News Digital. He also noted that when defending election integrity laws, conservative attorneys often lack sufficient specialized colleagues, academic resources, and experience.
The report acknowledges that ideology alone does not dictate legal outcomes for every professor or case. However, PILF asserts that the imbalance in academia creates a self-enforcing cycle. Left-leaning professors influence students' understanding of election law, who then enter legal practice focused on challenging election integrity laws. This, the foundation argues, results in a nationwide advantage in available legal expertise, research, and resources for one side of election litigation.
To address this perceived imbalance, PILF suggests that law schools in more conservative-leaning states should establish election law centers. Adams also pointed to the campus culture, noting that in some institutions, conservatives are seen as an anomaly rather than active participants. He proposed that state legislatures could help by funding election law chairs at public universities.
PILF reached out to Harvard, UC Berkeley, and the University of Michigan law schools for comment on the report's findings.