Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In July 2006, President George Bush signed into law “The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006,” extending the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. Included in those renewed provisions was Section 203, the federal government’s attempt to provide language accommodation for United States citizens who are Asian American, Native Alaskan, American Indian, or of Spanish-heritage. Yet while Section 203 is a significant protection for citizens who are members of the above language minority groups, it is far from being an effective accommodation for all voters who are of limited English proficiency (LEP) in the United States. The debate over its need and efficacy is particularly compelling in the heat of the ongoing and growing controversy over immigration policies in the United States and worldwide.

Using the United States political system as a case study, and drawing parallels from similar democracies in South Africa, Israel, Ireland, Canada, and Great Britain, the article will develop a normative theory in support of a broad need for a democratic system to accomodate and embrace linguistic diversity. It will offer a detailed critique of existing accommodationist policies in the above countries and set forth a proposal for a flexible legal and political infrastructure that can address the existing inadequacies identified in the United States and elsewhere. The proposed model for improving accommodation will include the affirmative provision of assistance from certified translators, increased involvement of language minority community groups and organizations in determining the extent of coverage under federal law, and an increased role for courts in regulating and enforcing accomodations – is an attempt to develop a blueprint for democratic accomodation that is tailored to serve all voters who require language assistance in order to act as equal participants in a democracy. It will also address issues of anti-immigrant backlash and voter suppresion that such an accomodationist policy risks enflaming.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The financial costs of litigation and their potential of large awards can consume scarce resources for a city and can affect a community's entire social and financial well-being. This study will explore alternative dispute resolution options.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Has LDP dominance reduced Japanese judges' willingness to rule against the government in pollution cases? I find that judges' passivity results more from the limits of environmental law and social movements' resources than from careerist interests.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Using the case study of the Tlaxcalan community in New Spain, this paper examines how native people used the legal system of the Spanish Empire to advocate on their own behalf between 1580 and 1640, and how their persistent activity influenced the evolving imperial system. During this period, the native population fell to its nadir; the Spanish and casta (mixed race) population grew dramatically; and the separate Spanish and Indian jurisdictions (república de indios and república de españoles) broke down. As Spaniards and castas increasingly bought and usurped uncultivated land in the region, the Tlaxcalans used the political and legal system to influence the transfer of land, cultural norms and political jurisdiction. Adjusting to the changing social and political reality, this paper shows how Tlaxcalans adapted their legal strategies and negotiated change in the legal system. Conversely, the paper argues that in the process of acting in the system, Tlaxcalans influenced the application and interpretation of Spanish law and prompted the Crown to promulgate new laws.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This article addresses the relationship between administrative law and democracy by examining the development of administrative litigation in China since the law formalizing judicial review of government action was introduced in 1989. My inquiry proceeds in three main parts. First, I consider the degree to which the availability of judicial review has served to strengthen the application of state law to government action. Drawing on my own and other available field research, I find evidence of some positive contributions in this regard, including examples of autonomous development of legal institutions and of legal professionalization within government departments. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence suggests that extra-legal factors remain dominant in the resolution of citizen grievances, and in the incentives which structure government action.

Building on these empirical findings, I proceed to consider what sort and degree of legalization of government action might be possible in an authoritarian setting. On the same evidence, I also note some limits to what legalization can contribute to socially beneficial and non-abusive governance in the first place. This analysis advances two distinct arguments for some greater degree of political pluralism in China: first, as a source of support for legal institutions, and second, as a source for political accountability where legal accountability is difficult to fashion or easy to evade.

I conclude by noting some unexpected ways in which the experience of administrative litigation, whether or not lawsuits are successful on their own terms, may be contributing to the emergence of greater political pluralism in China. In particular, I focus on four overlapping areas of political activity and discourse that are rooted in administrative litigation: the regularized contention between citizens and the State that it sanctions; the narratives of government wrongdoing it can produce; the various types of interest groups it can help develop; and the accountability-based discourse it supports. I do not claim that these political dimensions of administrative litigation necessarily will lead to multi-party elections in China, but that they do represent a certain degree of political pluralism, in and of themselves, and may help open up space for greater degrees of pluralism in the future.