Political parties are more than key players of democratic politics under the law of democracy. In addition to acting behind the scenes of election lawmaking, political parties regulate themselves in the name of “party autonomy,” and the extra-legal self-regulations they make often have external effects on the democratic political process as a whole. The most important function political parties perform is to select candidates for electoral competition, and how parties regulate candidate selection in general and candidacy in particular exemplifies their role as co-regulators of electoral democracy. Using Taiwan as a case study, this article explores how partisan self-regulation of legislative candidacies has diversified and complicated the qualifications for representatives. It also attempts to grasp the normative significance and implications of partisan rules by theorizing a pluralistic account of democratic authorities and election lawmaking: the pluralism of the law of democracy. By taking pluralism seriously, this article aims at shedding new light on the regulatory roles of the state, the courts, and political parties in advancing electoral integrity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshiagborSefakor. 2011. Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Selecting Candidates for Legislative Office. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute.
2.
AvnonDan. 1995. “Parties Laws in Democratic Systems of Government.” Journal of Legislative Studies, 1(2): 283–300.
3.
BaumJulian and RobinsonJames. 1999. “Party Primaries in Taiwan: Trends, Conditions, and Projections in Candidate Selection.” Occasional Papers/Reprint Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, 155(6): 2–39.
4.
BooysenSusan. 2006. “The Will of the Parties Versus the Will of the People? Defections, Elections and Alliances in South Africa.” Party Politics, 12(6): 727–46.
5.
Bulman-PozenJessica. 2013. “Partisan Federalism.” Harvard Law Review, 127(4): 1077–1146.
6.
CainBruce E.. 2001. “Party Autonomy and Two-Party Electoral Competition.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149: 793–814.
7.
CainBruce E.. 2010. “Reform, Perhaps: Two Studies on the Presidential Nomination Process.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 9(2): 153–55.
8.
CassadyBenjamin. 2014. “You've Got Your Crook, I've Got Mine: Why the Disqualification Clause Doesn't (Always) Disqualify.” Quinnipiac Law Review, 32: 209–310.
9.
ChafetzJosh. 2007. Democracy's Privileged Few: Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions. Yale University Press.
10.
ChengTun–jen. 2006. “Strategizing Party Adaptation: The Case of the Kuomintang.” Party Politics, 12(3): 367–94.
11.
ChildsSarah. 2013. “Intra-Party Democracy: A Gendered Critique and a Feminist Agenda.” In The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, edited by CrossWilliam P. and KatzRichard S., first edition, 81–99. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
CitrinJack and KarolDavid. 2009. Nominating the President: Evolution and Revolution in 2008 and Beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
13.
DawoodYasmin. 2013. “Democracy and the Problem of the Partisan State.” In Loyalty: NOMOS LIV, edited by LevinsonSanford, WoodruffPaul, and ParkerJoel, 257–91. New York, NY: New York University Press.
14.
El–HajTabatha Abu. 2011. “Changing the People: Legal Regulation and American Democracy.” New York University Law Review, 86(1): 1–68.
15.
ElmendorfChristopher S. and SchleicherDavid. 2013. “Informing Consent: Voter Ignorance, Political Parties, and Election Law.” University of Illinois Law Review, 2013: 363–432.
16.
ElsterJon. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraint. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). 2002. Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report. CDL–EL(2002)5. Venice Commission.
18.
FellDafydd. 2006. “Democratization of Candidate Selection in Taiwanese Political Parties.” Journal of Electoral Studies, 13(2): 167–198.
19.
GardnerJames A. and CharlesGuy–Uriel. 2012. Election Law in the American Political System. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
20.
GarrettElizabeth. 2002. “Is the Party Over? The Court and the Political Process.” 2002 Supreme Court Review: 95–152.
21.
GaujaAnika. 2010. Political Parties and Elections: Legislating for Representative Democracy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Company.
22.
GaujaAnika. 2012. “The ‘Push’ for Primaries: What Drives Party Organisational Reform in Australia and the United Kingdom?” Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(4): 641–58.
23.
GeddisAndrew. 2002. “Gang Aft A-Gley: New Zealand's Attempt to Combat ‘Party Hopping’ by Elected Representatives.” Election Law Journal, 1: 557–571.
24.
GeddisAndrew. 2007. Electoral Law in New Zealand: Practice and Policy. Wellington, New Zealand: LexisNexis New Zealand.
25.
GerkenHeather K.. 2010. “Foreword: Federalism All the Way Down.” Harvard Law Review, 124: 4–74.
26.
GerkenHeather K.. 2014. “The Loyal Opposition.” Yale Law Journal, 123: 1958–94.
27.
GerkenHeather K., and RandDouglas B.. 2010. “Creating Better Heuristics for the Presidential Primary: The Citizen Assembly.” Political Science Quarterly, 125(2): 233–53.
28.
GreeneAbner S.. 2012. Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
HasenRichard L.. 2008. “Too Plain for Argument: The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees through Direct and Equal Primaries.” Northwestern University Law Review, 102: 253–63.
30.
HazanReuven Y. and RahatGideon.. 2010. Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
HirschmanAlbert O.. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. New Ed edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
IssacharoffSamuel. 2001. “Private Parties with Public Purposes: Political Parties, Associational Freedoms, and Partisan Competition.” Columbia Law Review, 101(2): 274–313.
33.
IssacharoffSamuel and OrtizDaniel R.. 1999. “Governing Through Intermediaries.” Virginia Law Review, 85: 1627–1670.
34.
IssacharoffSamuel and PildesRichard H.. 1998. “Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process.” Stanford Law Review, 50: 643–717.
35.
IssacharoffSamuel, KarlanPamela S., and PildesRichard H.. 2012. The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
36.
JacobsJ. Bruce. 2012. Democratizing Taiwan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
37.
JandaKenneth. 2009. “Laws against Party Switching, Defecting, or Floor–Crossing in National Parliaments.” 2009 World Congress of the International Political Science Association.
38.
KaltBrian C.. 2014. “The Application of the Disqualification Clause to Congress: A Response to Benjamin Cassady, You've Got the Crook, I've Got Mine: Why the Disqualification Clause Doesn't (Always) Disqualify.” Quinnipiac Law Review, 33(1): 7–31.
39.
KangMichael S.. 2005. “The Hydraulics and Politics of Party Regulation.” Iowa Law Review, 91: 131–187.
40.
KangMichael S.. 2011. “Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation.” Georgetown Law Journal, 99: 1013–1075.
41.
KatzRichard S.. 2001. “The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy.” Party Politics, 7(3): 277–96.
42.
KarvonenLauri. 2007. “Legislation on Political Parties: A Global Comparison.” Party Politics, 13(4): 437–55.
43.
KeyV. O.Jr.1964. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
44.
KramerLarry D.. 2000. “Putting the Politics Back into the Political Safeguards of Federalism.” Columbia Law Review, 100(1): 215–93.
45.
KrookMona Lena. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
LinJih–wen. 2009. “The Evolvement of Taiwan's Constitutional System.” In The Political System of Taiwan, edited by Porsche–LudwigMarkus and ChuChing–peng, 31–54. Baden–Baden, Germany: Nomos Publishers.
47.
LowensteinDaniel Hays. 1993. “Associational Rights of Major Political Parties: A Skeptical Inquiry.” Texas Law Review, 71: 1741–1792.
48.
LowensteinDaniel Hays. 1994. “Are Congressional Term Limits Constitutional?”. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18: 1–72.
49.
LowensteinDaniel Hays. 2006. “Legal Regulation and Protection of American Parties.” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by KatzRichard S. and CrottyWilliam J., illustrated edition, 456–470. CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
50.
LowensteinDaniel Hays, HasenRichard L., and TokajiDaniel P.. 2008. Election Law: Cases and Materials. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
51.
JamesMadison., HamiltonAlexander, and JayJohn. 1987 (1788). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
52.
MaskellJack. 2015. Qualifications of Members of Congress. R41946. Congressional Research Service.
53.
MassicotteLouis, BlaisAndré, and YoshinakaAntoine. 2004. Establishing the Rules of the Game: Election Laws in Democracies. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
54.
MerloePatrick. 2009. “Human Rights—The Basis for Inclusiveness, Transparency, Accountability, and Public Confidence in Elections.” In International Election Principles: Democracy and the Rule of Law, edited by YoungJohn Hardin, 3–39. Chicago, IL: ABA Publishing.
55.
MorrisCaroline. 2012. Parliamentary Elections, Representation and the Law. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
56.
MüllerWolfgang and SiebererUlrich. 2006. “Party Law.” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by KatzRichard S. and CrottyWilliam J., illustrated edition, 435–45. CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
57.
NorrisPippa. 2006. “Recruitment.” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by KatzRichard S. and CrottyWilliam J., 89–108. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
58.
NorrisPippa, FrankRichard W., and ComaFerran Martinez i, eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity, first edition. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
OrrGraeme. 2001. “Overseeing the Gatekeepers: Should the Preselection of Political Candidates Be Regulated?”. Public Law Review, 12: 89–94.
60.
OrrGraeme. 2011a. “Legal Conceptions of Political Parties through the Lens of Anti-discrimination Law.” In Electoral Democracy: Australian Prospects, edited by ThamJ.C., CostarB., and OrrG., 120–139. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
61.
OrrGraeme. 2011b. “Party Primaries for Candidate Selection—Right Question, Wrong Answer.” University of New South Wales Law Journal, 34: 964–83.
62.
OrrGraeme. 2013. “Private Association and Public Brand: The Dualistic Conception of Political Parties in the Common Law World.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 17(3): 332–49.
63.
PersilyNathaniel. 2001a. “Candidates v. Parties: The Constitutional Constraints on Primary Ballot Access Laws.” Georgetown Law Journal, 88: 2181–2225.
64.
PersilyNathaniel. 2001b. “Toward a Functional Defense of Political Party Autonomy.” New York University Law Review, 76: 750–824.
65.
PersilyNathaniel, and CainBruce E.2000. “The Legal Status of Political Parties: A Reassessment of Competing Paradigms.” Columbia Law Review, Symposium: Law and Political Parties, 100(3): 775–812.
66.
PildesRichard H.. 2011a. “Political Parties and Constitutionalism.” In Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by GinsburgTom and DixonRosalind, 254–264. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
67.
PildesRichard H.. 2011b. “Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America.” California Law Review, 99: 273–334.
68.
PostRobert C., KarlanPamela S., LessigLawrence, MichelmanFrank I., and UrbinatiNadia. 2014. Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
RahatGideon. 2009. “Which Candidate Selection Method Is the Most Democratic?” Government and Opposition, 44(1): 68–90.
70.
RehfeldAndrew. 2009. “On Quotas and Qualifications for Office.” In Political Representation, edited by ShapiroIan, StokesSusan C., WoodElisabeth Jean, and KirshnerAlexander S., 236–268. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
RosenblumNancy L.. 2010. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72.
SkachCindy. 2012. “Political Parties and the Constitution.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by RosenfeldMichel and SajóAndrás, 874–890. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
73.
SmithSteven S. and SpringerMelanie J., eds. 2009. Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
74.
TamanahaBrian. 2008. “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global.” Sydney Law Review, 30: 375–411.
75.
ThompsonDennis F.. 2002. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
76.
ThompsonDennis F.. 2010. “The Primary Purpose of Presidential Primaries.” Political Science Quarterly, 125(2): 205–32.
77.
TillmanSeth Barrett. 2014. “Originalism and the Scope of the Constitution's Disqualification Clause.” Quinnipiac Law Review, 33: 59–126.
78.
TullySteve. 2003. “Party Registration and Preselection: A Minefield for Electoral Administrators?.” In Realising Democracy: Electoral Law in Australia, edited by OrrGraeme, MercurioBryan, and WilliamsGeorge, 143–156. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.
79.
Van BiezenIngrid. 2011. “Constitutionalizing Party Democracy: The Constitutive Codification of Political Parties in Post–War Europe.” British Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 187–212.
80.
WuChung–li and FellDafydd. 2001. “Taiwan's Party Primaries in Comparative Perspective.” Japanese Journal of Political Science, 2(1): 23–45.
