This book fills a gap in constitutional law by investigating the global
trend towards substantive constitutional adjudication of electoral
legislation. On which premises is this judicial scrutiny grounded, what
can explain the trend and with which consequences for representative
democracy? So far, scholars have focused their attention on a few
countries and on selected judgments, such as the US Supreme Court's
landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. This book offers instead a
comparative reading of the issue by analysing how the circulation of
models and arguments between judges has triggered the progressive
overcoming of a traditionally deferent approach towards electoral norms,
which still survives in a few jurisdictions.
The book explores the democratic underpinning of electoral systems and
their evolution. It explores the methodological choices constitutional
judges are confronted with when managing electoral legislation. This
prepares the ground for the in-depth review of the case law in thirteen
legal systems, across North and South America, Africa, Asia and Europe,
with a view to identifying the underlying concept of democracy courts
seek to advance. The authors critically discuss the ideas of democracy
that can be detected in each jurisdiction. This includes the use of
constitutional borrowing, and the effects of the judgments on the
relationship between courts, representative institutions and the voters.
Given the global reach, the combination of theoretical and practical
approaches, and the comparative assessment provided, this work is of
interest for academics in the field of law, political science and
philosophy, and for policy-makers and judges in constitutional
democracies across the continents.
