Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94098Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林明昕 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Ming-Hsin Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 蘇宏凱 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hung-Kai Su | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-14T16:40:53Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-15 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-08-14 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
一、專書 吳信華（2021），《憲法釋論》，增訂四版，三民。 二、書之篇章 林子儀（1997），〈言論自由的限制與雙軌理論〉，收於：李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集編輯委員會（編），《現代國家與憲法：李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集》，頁 639-708，月旦。 湯德宗（2007），〈政府資訊公開請求權入憲之研究〉，收於：湯德宗、廖福特（編），《憲法解釋之理論與實務（第五輯）》，頁 261-291，中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。 劉靜怡（譯）（2011），〈Mathews v. Eldridge〉，收於：何曜琛（等著），《美國聯邦最高法院憲法判決選譯（第七輯）》，頁 111-117，司法院。 三、期刊論文 王偉霖（2012），〈論營業秘密案件之定暫時狀態處分－兼評臺灣高等法院九十六年度抗字第一六四一號民事裁定〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，209 期，頁 245-268。 李建良（2021），〈暫時權利保護的規範體系與實務發展〉，《月旦法學教室》，225 期，頁 54-68。 李建良（2022），〈行政法院審判與裁判憲法審查〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，322 期，頁6-31。 李榮耕（2012），〈初探最高法院之案件受理規範及言詞辯論－以美國聯邦最高法院相關法制為比較對象〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，208 期，頁 47-64。 周良黛（2005），〈臺灣「不在籍投票」的立法政策研析〉，《中山人文社會科學期刊》，13 卷 2 期，頁 87-145。 林明昕（2005），〈假處分之本案事先裁判－兼論行政訴訟法第二百九十八條第三項之規範意義〉，《中原財經法學》，15 期，頁 77-120。 林明昕（2021），〈論行政訴訟法上之都市計畫審查〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，308 期，頁 44-61。 宮文祥（2013），〈面對環境保護落實與環境政策形塑：試探美國聯邦最高法院當為及當守之分際－以做為我司法審查之參考〉，《司法新聲》，105 期，頁 26-40。 宮文祥（2020），〈從「因地制宜」到「由下而上」－試探中央與地方在環境上之應有關係：由美國法觀點出發〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，405 期，頁 67-82。 張郁齡（2022），〈著作權侵權訴訟之權利懈怠抗辯－以美國案例法為中心〉，《財產法暨經濟法》，69 期，頁 37-85。 許志雄（1996），〈參政權之限制〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，16 期，頁 60-61。 許炳華（2022），〈美國選區劃分之合憲性爭議：以政治問題為核心〉，《東吳法律學報》，34 卷 1 期，頁 1-39。 陳愛娥（2005），〈司法院大法官作成暫時處分的要件與其運用－簡評司法院大法官釋字第五九九號解釋〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，73 期，頁 191-194。 湯德宗（2000），〈立法裁量之司法審查的憲法依據－違憲審查正當性理論初探〉，《憲政時代》，26 卷 2 期，頁 3-44。 湯德宗（2005），〈大法官得否命「暫時停止適用」法律？－真調會條例釋憲案鑑定意見書（一）〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，117 期，頁 9-23。 黃昭元（2003），〈司法違憲審查的正當性爭議－理論基礎與方法論的初步檢討〉，《臺大法學論叢》，32 卷 6 期，頁 105-153。 黃昭元（2004），〈憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析〉，《臺大法學論叢》，33 卷 3 期，頁 45-148。 黃昭元（2005），〈真調會條例釋憲案鑑定意見－急速處分部分〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，117 期，頁 24-36。 黃昭元（2012），〈論差別影響歧視與差別對待歧視的關係－評美國最高法院 Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) 判決〉，《中研院法學期刊》，11 期，頁 1-63。 楊崇森（2010），〈美國民事訴訟制度之特色與對我國之啟示〉，《軍法專刊》，56 卷 5 期，頁 5-44。 楊智傑（2012），〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產權》，160 期，頁 51-100。 廖元豪（2022），〈墮胎是人權還是殺人？誰說了算？－美國最高法院墮胎系列判例之演進與評析〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，331 期，頁 110-133。 劉宏恩（1995），〈司法違憲審查與「政治問題」（Political Question）－大法官會議釋字三二八號評析〉，《法律評論》，61 卷 1、2 期，頁 24-38。 謝碩駿（2022），〈論行政法院在暫時權利保護程序中聲請法規範憲法審查〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，51 卷 2 期，頁 335-410。 四、學位論文 徐聖評（2019），《定暫時狀態處分制度於我國實務之運用－以公司經營權爭奪事件為中心》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 陳懿宏（2021），《論具殺傷力合理審查基準－以平等權相關案例為中心》，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 廖崇年（2022），《不在籍投票法制之研究－以美國投票相關法制為中心》，私立嶺東科技大學財經法律學研究所碩士論文。 鄭苡宣（2020），《美國聯邦法上暫時禁制令之標準及界限》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 蘇慧婕（2003），《論國會議員產生方式之規範及其憲法界限－以人民的選擇自由為中心》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 貳、英文部分 一、書籍 Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional law: Principles and policies (6th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. Dobbs, D. (1993). Law of remedies: Damages, equity, restitution (2nd ed.). West Pub. Co. John H. Ely. (1980). Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. John, B. C. (1957). Special district governments in the United States. University of California Press. Keyssar, A. (2000). The right to vote: the contested history of democracy in the United States. Basic Books. Klarman, M. J. (2017). The framers’ coup: The making of the United States constitution. Oxford University Press. Nowak, J., & Rotunda, R. (2010). Constitutional law (8th ed.). Thomson/West. Stoll-DeBell, K., Dempsey, B., & Dempsey, N. (2009). Injunctive relief: Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Section of Litigation, American Bar Association. Tribe, L. H. (1988). American constitutional law (2nd ed.). Foundation Press. 二、期刊論文 (2021). Election law voting rights sixth circuit limits scope of equal protection analysis regarding disparate treatment of voters mays v. larose, 951 f.3d 775 (6th cir. 2020). Harvard Law Review, 134(3), 1252-1259. (2022). "As the legislature has prescribed": removing presidential elections from the anderson-burdick framework. Harvard Law Review, 135(4), 1082-1103. Ansolabehere, Stephen, & Persily, Nathaniel. (2008). Vote fraud in the eye of the beholder: the role of public opinion in the challenge to voter identification requirements. Harvard Law Review, 121(7), 1737-1775. Basile, Thomas. (2009). Inventing the right to vote in crawford v. marion county election board, 128 s.ct. 1610 (2008). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 32(1), 431-450. Baude, William. (2015). Foreword: the supreme court's shadow docket. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, 9(1), 1-47. Bitensky, S. H. (2023). Advancing america's emblematic right: doctrinal bases for the fundamental constitutional right to vote per se. University of Miami Law Review, 77(3), 613-675. Blomberg, J. A. (1995). Protecting the right not to vote from voter purge statutes. Fordham Law Review, 64(3), 1015-1050. Briffault, Richard. (2002). The contested right to vote. Michigan Law Review, 100(6), 1506-1531. Brilleaux, K. E. (2010). The right, the test, and the vote: evaluating the reasoning employed in crawford v. marion county election board. Louisiana Law Review , 70(3), 1023-1060. Carroll, D. T. (1974). The voting booth with steel bars: prisoners voting rights and o'brien v. skinner. Capital University Law Review, 3(2), 245-265. Casey, Kevin, Camara, Jade, & Wright, Nancy. (2001). Standards of appellate review in the federal circuit: substance and semantics. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 11(2), 279-386. Charles, G. E. (2003). Racial identity, electoral structures, and the first amendment right of association. California Law Review, 91(5), 1209-1280. Charton, Paul. (2007). Frying pan or fire: legal fallout from the contested 2000 presidential election. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 29(4), 669-678. Codrington, Wilfred U. III. (2021). Purcell in pandemic. New York University Law Review, 96(4), 941-984. Cohen, Mathilde. (2015). When judges have reasons not to give reasons: comparative law approach. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72(2), 483-572. Cox, Emily Vincent. (2016). most precious right: equal protection, voter photo identification, and the battle brewing in texas. Georgia Law Review, 51(1), 235-264. Crawford, J. S. (2012). Unlikely to succeed: how the second circuit's adherence to the serious questions standard for the granting of preliminary injunctions contradicts supreme court precedent and turns an extraordinary remedy into an ordinary one. Oklahoma Law Review, 64(3), 437-468. Denlow, Morton. (2003). The motion for preliminary injunction: time for uniform federal standard. Review of Litigation, 22(3), 495-540. Derfner, Armand, & Hebert, J. Gerald. (2016). Voting is speech. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2), 471-492. DiSarro, Anthony. (2011). Freeze frame: the supreme court's reaffirmation of the substantive principles of preliminary injunctions. Gonzaga Law Review, 47(1), 51-98. DiSarro, Anthony. (2012). farewell to harms: against presuming irreparable injury in constitutional litigation. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 35(2), 743-796. Dodsworth, H. B. (2022). The positive and negative purcell principle. Utah Law Review, 2022(5), 1081-1134. Douglas, J. A. (2008). Is the right to vote really fundamental. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18(1), 143-202. Douglas, J. A. (2021). Undue deference to states in the 2020 election litigation. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 30(1), 59-90. Eason, Ryan. (2021). Get out the vote (or else): testing the constitutionality of compulsory voting. Southern California Law Review, 94(4), 963-1004. Elmendorf, C. S. (2007). Structuring judicial review of electoral mechanics: explanations and opportunities. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156(2), 313-394. Elmendorf, C. S. (2008). Undue burdens on voter participation: new pressures for structural theory of the right to vote. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 35(4), 643-712. Floyd, Graham August Toney. (2014). Federalism, elections, preemption, and supremacy: the aftermath of inter tribal council. Mississippi College Law Review, 33(2), 235-258. Foley, E. B. (2013). Voting rules and constitutional law. George Washington Law Review, 81(6), 1836-1864. Franklin, Beatrice Catherine. (2014). Irreparability, presume: on assuming irreparable harm for constitutional violations in preliminary injunctions. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 45(2), 623-667. Gao, Ruoyin. (2022). Why the purcell principle should be abolished. Duke Law Journal, 71(5), 1139-1174. Gilleran, S. D. (2020). Purcell v. gonzalez, principle and problem native american voting rights in the 2018 north dakota elections. Wake Forest Law Review, 55(2), 445-474. Gogul, K. B. (2021). Reifying anderson-burdick: voter protection in the time of pandemic and beyond. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 90(1), 259-282. Gunther, Gerald (1972). Foreword: in search of evolving doctrine on changing court: model for newer equal protection Harvard Law Review 86(1), 1-48. Haller, D. B. (1981). Granting preliminary injunctions against dealership terminations in antitrust actions. Virginia Law Review, 67(7), 1395-1422. Hammond, R. Grant. (1980). Interlocutory injunctions: time for new model. University of Toronto Law Journal, 30(3), 240-282. Hasen, R. L. (2007). The untimely death of bush v. gore. Stanford Law Review , 60(1), 1-44. Hasen, R. L. (2016). Reining in the purcell principle. Florida State University Law Review, 43(2), 427-464. Hasen, R. L. (2020). The Supreme Court's Pro-Partisanship Turn. GLJ Online (Georgetown Law Journal Online), 109, 50-80. Hayden, G. M. (2003). The false promise of one person, one vote. Michigan Law Review, 102(2), 213-267. Herman, David. (2023). Reviving the prophylactic vra: section 3, purcell, and the new vote denial. Yale Law Journal, 132(5), 1462-1527. Higgins, D. D. (1976). The application of the doctrine of laches in public interest litigation. Boston University Law Review, 56(1), 181-208. Houston, Rachael. (2023). Does anybody really know what time it is?: how the us supreme court defines "time" using the purcell principle. Nevada Law Journal, 23(3), 769-808. Hymer, D. G. (1984). The eleventh circuit's application of the civil rights attorney's fees awards act of 1976. Alabama Law Review, 36(1), 103-146. Issacharoff, Samuel, & Karlan, P. S. (2004). Where to draw the line: judicial review of political gerrymanders. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(1), 541-578. Jensen, B. P. (2009). Crawford v. marion county election board: the missed opportunity to remedy the ambiguity and unpredictability of burdick. Denver University Law Review, 86(2), 535-564. Karlan, P. S. (2002). Equal protection, due process, and the stereoscopic fourteenth amendment. McGeorge Law Review, 33(3), 473-492. Karlan, P. S. (2007). New beginnings and dead ends in the law of democracy Ohio State Law Journal, 68(3), 743-766. Karst, K. L. (1975). Equality as central principle in the first amendment. University of Chicago Law Review, 43(1), 20-68. Le Clercq, F. S. (1975). The emerging federally secured right of political participation. Indiana Law Review, 8(4), 607-653. Lee, T. R. (2001). Preliminary injunctions and the status quo. Washington and Lee Law Review, 58(1), 109-166. Leubsdorf, John (1978). The standard for preliminary injunctions. Harvard Law Review 91(3), 525-566. Lindell, N. B. (2017). One person, no votes: unopposed candidate statutes and the state of election law. Wisconsin Law Review, 2017(5), 885-954. Logan, Michele. (1993). The right to write-in: voting rights and the first amendment. Hastings Law Journal, 44(3), 727-752. Lupu, I. C. (1979). Untangling the strands of the fourteenth amendment. Michigan Law Review, 77(4), 981-1077. Martin, J. J. (2021). Mail-in Ballots and Constraints on Federal Power under the Electors Clause. Virginia Law Review Online, 107, 84-98. Maxfield, A. C. (2020). Litigating the line drawers: why courts should apply anderson-burdick to redistricting commissions. University of Chicago Law Review, 87(7), 1845-1892. Mayo, Amanda. (2016). Nonresident vote dilution claims: rational basis or strict scrutiny review. University of Chicago Law Review, 83(4), 2213-2256. Miller, Robert. (2020). comprehensive framework for conflict preemption in federal insolvency proceedings. West Virginia Law Review, 123(2), 423-482. Milson, Aaliyah. (2022). Why Georgia's Voting Rights Legislation Violates the First Amendment. Rutgers University Law Review Commentaries, 75, 101-113. Mitchel, P. R. (1991). Appellate advocacy one judge's point of view. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 1(2), 1-10. Moore, M. Devon. (2019). The preliminary injunction standard: understanding the public interest factor. Michigan Law Review, 117(5), 939-962. Mortellaro, S. E. (2017). The unconstitutionality of the federal ban on noncitizen voting and congressionally-imposed voter qualifications. Loyola Law Review, 63(3), 447-520. Nagel, Jason. (2022). Standardizing State Vote-by-Mail Deadlines in Federal Elections. Cardozo Law Review De-Novo, 2022, 1-41. Natelson, R. G. (2003). The enumerated powers of states. Nevada Law Journal, 3(3), 469-494. Ordway, D. A. (2007). Disenfranchisement and the constitution: finding standard that works. New York University Law Review, 82(4), 1174-1209. Payne, Taylor. (2018). Now is the winter of ginsburg's dissent. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 13(1), 15-84. Pollock, J. M. (1979). Voting rights and extraterritorial municipal powers in light of holt civic club v. city of tuscaloosa. Wayne Law Review, 25(4), 1085-1104. Ringhand, L. A. (2014). Voter viewpoint discrimination: first amendment challenge to voter participation restrictions. Election Law Journal, 13(2), 288-309. Saltzbart, Lydia. (2021). "a dollar ain't much if you've got it": freeing modern-day poll taxes from anderson-burdick. Journal of Law and Policy, 29(2), 522-558. Schacter, J. S. (2006). Unenumerated democracy: lessons from the right to vote. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(1), 457-564. Shaffer, D. L. (1996). Ballot access laws. Denver University Law Review, 73(3), 657-670. Sheppard, Ben, & Guckert, Josh. (2021). The ballot is stronger than the bullet: alaska's superior strict scrutiny approach to ballot access laws. Alaska Law Review, 38(2), 183-216. Shreve, G. R. (1983). Federal injunctions and the public interest George Washington Law Review 51(3), 382-419. Snyder, J. L. (1982). Ball v. james and the rational basis test: an exception to the one person-one vote rule. American University Law Review, 31(3), 721-754. Tofighbakhsh, Sara. (2020). Racial gerrymandering after rucho v. common cause: untangling race and party. Columbia Law Review, 120(7), 1885-1928. Tokaji, D. P. (2016). Voting is association. Florida State University Law Review, 43(2), 763-792. Tokaji, D. P. (2018). Gerrymandering and association. William & Mary Law Review, 59(5), 2159-2210. Tokaji, D. P. (2018). Vote Dissociation. Yale Law Journal Forum, 127, 761-778. Vaughn, L. B. (1989). Need for clarity: toward new standard for preliminary injunctions. Oregon Law Review, 68(4), 839-884. Vazquez, Andrew. (2021). Abusing emergency powers: how the supreme court degraded voting rights protections during the covid-19 pandemic and opened the door for abuse of state power. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 48(4), 967-1020. Watson, Danika Elizabeth. (2021). Free and fair: judicial intervention in elections beyond the purcell principle and anderson-burdick balancing. Fordham Law Review, 90(2), 991-1028. Weisshaar, R. A. (2012). Hazy shades of winter: resolving the circuit split over preliminary injunctions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65(3), 1011-1058. Winkler, Adam. (1993). Expressive voting. New York University Law Review, 68(2), 330-388. Winkler, Adam. (2006). Fundamentally wrong about fundamental rights. Constitutional Commentary, 23(2), 227-240. Wolf, A. D. (1984). Preliminary injunctions: the varying standards. Western New England Law Review, 7(2), 173-238. Zhang, Emily Rong. (2021). Voting rights lawyering in crisis. CUNY Law Review, 24(2), 123-144. 三、研究報告 Persily, N. (2021, July). The virus and the vote: Administering the 2020 election in a pandemic. Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project. 四、網路資源 Hasen, R. (2021, April 1). Supreme Court: Election Litigation That Doesn’t Come Too Early Comes Too Late. Election L. Blog. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121414. Hasen, R. (2023, June 29). Rob Yablon: “Moore v. Harper and the Purcell Principle”. Election L. Blog. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=137194. Hufford, A. (2020, September 1). What’s going on with the Postal Service? Lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/whats-going-postal-service. Kennedy, L. (2021, April 21). Voting Rights Milestones in America: A Timeline. History. https://www.history.com/news/voting-rights-timeline. Kerr, O. (2006, October 20). Supreme Court Allows Voter ID Law. Volokh Conspiracy. https://volokh.com/posts/1161378321.shtml. Levitt, J. (2008, May 2). Crawford—More Rhetorical Bark than Legal Bite? Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crawford-more-rhetorical-bark-legal-bite. Mahmud, I. (2020, November 15). Lessons from Election Litigation in the COVID-19 Era. The Equal Democracy Project. https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/equaldemocracy/page/2/?cat=-1. Muller, D. T. (2020, April 6). Justice Ginsburg turns the “Purcell Principle” upside down in Wisconsin primary case. Excess of Democracy. https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2020/4/justice-ginsburg-turns-the-purcell-principle-upside-down-in-wisconsin-primary-case. Stephanopoulos, N. (2020, September 27). Freeing Purcell from the Shadows. Take Care. https://takecareblog.com/blog/freeing-purcell-from-the-shadows. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94098 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 2022 年年末，我國舉行九合一選舉，由於新冠疫情尚未止息，指揮中心及中選會皆表示確診尚未解除隔離者不得外出投票，嚴重影響確診者「選舉權」之行使，遂有當事人向行政法院及憲法法庭尋求救濟，不過並未成功。由於我國過往少有於選舉期間發生如同新冠疫情的緊急事態，本文遂以美國 2020 年總統大選期間之法院裁判作為研究對象，希望得以作為我國司法之借鏡。透過分析五起 2020 年美國大選之疫情案件發現主要爭議在於「選舉權之違憲審查」、「Purcell 原則」，並藉由回顧實務、學說見解，本文釐清此二爭議之淵源、發展及如何影響疫情案件。
「選舉權之違憲審查」方面，聯邦最高法院主要透過平等保護條款保障選舉權，其保障範圍雖然明確，但限制是否足以開啟選舉權之違憲審查仍視個案情形而定，此外，聯邦最高法院傾向在特定類型案件應用 Anderson-Burdick test，否則仍應用三重審查標準。「Purcell 原則」方面，其應用可以分為「明線規則說」及「權衡說」二種見解，且目前本原則主要用於限制聯邦法院，本文認為採取「權衡說」較能避免法官主觀恣意，亦能避免上級法院之裁判必然更接近選舉而應受限制之荒謬。無論是「選舉權之違憲審查」或「Purcell 原則」，皆具備高度開放性，整體而言，疫情案件之普遍失敗恐怕源自法院過分尊重州權力，而未能考量其他重要價值。 文末並將綜合研究所得，以我國 2022 年受隔離者無法投票之事件為例，省思 2020 年美國大選之疫情案件能給予我國「選舉權之違憲審查」及「暫時權利保護」何等啟示。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | At the end of 2022, Taiwan held its nine-in-one elections. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, both the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) and the Central Election Commission (CEC) announced that individuals who tested positive and had not yet been released from quarantine were not permitted to leave their homes to vote. This severely impacted the exercise of voting rights for those infected. Consequently, affected individuals sought relief from the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, but were unsuccessful. Given the rarity of emergency situations similar to the COVID-19 pandemic during election periods in Taiwan's history, this thesis examines the court decisions from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election as a reference for Taiwan’s judiciary.
By analyzing five COVID-19 related cases from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, the main issues identified were “constitutional review of the right to vote” and the “Purcell Principle.” Through reviewing practical cases and doctrinal opinions, this thesis clarifies the origins, development, and impact of these two issues on pandemic-related cases. Regarding the “constitutional review of the right to vote,” the U.S. Supreme Court primarily protects voting rights through the Equal Protection Clause. While the scope of protection is clear, whether restrictions trigger a constitutional review of voting rights depends on the specifics of each case. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court tends to apply the Anderson-Burdick test in certain types of cases; otherwise, it applies the three-tiered approach. Concerning the “Purcell Principle,” its application can be divided into the “bright-line rule” and the “balancing approach.” Currently, the principle is mainly used to limit federal courts. This thesis argues that adopting the “balancing approach” can better prevent judicial arbitrariness and avoid the absurdity of higher court decisions being subject to this principle simply because they are closer to the election than lower court decisions.. Both the “constitutional review of the right to vote” and the “Purcell Principle” are highly open-ended. Overall, the frequent failure of pandemic-related cases likely stems from the courts’ excessive deference to state powers without adequately considering other important values. In conclusion, this thesis combines the research findings to reflect on the insights that the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election pandemic-related cases can provide for Taiwan regarding “constitutional review of voting rights” and “preliminary relief,” using the example of the incident in Taiwan’s 2022 election where quarantined individuals were unable to vote. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-08-14T16:40:53Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-08-14T16:40:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 圖次 xii 表次 xii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 壹、緣起：2022 年我國選舉及公投 1 貳、借鑑：2020 年美國總統大選 3 第二節 研究範圍與架構 7 壹、研究範圍 7 貳、研究架構 8 第二章 疫情期間之選舉案件：以初步禁制令為中心 10 第一節 初步禁制令之審查標準 10 壹、審查因素 10 一、本案勝訴可能性 11 二、不可回復之損害 12 三、利益衡量 14 四、公共利益 15 貳、審查模式 16 一、次序標準（sequential test） 17 二、滑尺審查標準（sliding scale test） 18 三、門檻標準（threshold test; gateway factor test） 19 四、替代選擇標準（alternatives test） 19 第二節 疫情案件之主要爭議 20 壹、案件介紹 20 一、Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. 21 (一) 事實及爭訟概要 21 (二) 法院見解 21 1. 聯邦地方法院 21 2. 聯邦最高法院 24 二、Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott 25 (一) 事實及爭訟概要 25 (二) 法院見解 25 1. 聯邦地方法院 25 2. 第五巡迴上訴法院 27 三、New Ga. Project v. Raffensperger 28 (一) 事實及爭訟概要 28 (二) 法院見解 28 1. 聯邦地方法院 28 2. 第十一巡迴上訴法院 32 四、Jones v. United States Postal Serv. 33 (一) 事實及爭訟概要 33 (二) 法院見解 33 五、Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Way 35 (一) 事實及爭訟概要 35 (二) 法院見解 35 貳、爭點整理 36 一、本案勝訴可能性 37 (一) 法律層次之主張 37 (二) 憲法層次之主張 38 1. 選舉權之憲法基礎及保護範圍 38 2. Anderson-Burdick test 之操作及選擇 39 二、其他審查因素 40 (一) 既有問題 40 (二) Purcell 原則 41 第三節 小結 42 第三章 爭議因素之一：本案勝訴可能性 44 第一節 選舉權之憲法基礎及保障範圍 44 壹、憲法基礎 44 一、憲法未明確保障選舉權 44 二、增修條文第 1 條與第 14 條 46 (一) 增修條文第 14 條：「選舉權」或「選舉平等權」？ 46 (二) 增修條文第 1 條：「言論自由」或「結社自由」？ 49 (三) 增修條文第 1 條與第 14 條作為「開放平台」 52 貳、保障範圍 54 一、選民投票（cast a vote） 54 (一) 投票資格 55 (二) 行使投票 57 二、選票稀釋（dilution） 58 (一) 數量稀釋（quantitative dilution） 59 (二) 質量稀釋（qualitative dilution） 60 三、候選人參選 61 第二節 選舉權之違憲審查標準 62 壹、三重審查標準 62 一、選舉權不總是「基礎性權利」 63 (一) 選民投票 64 (二) 選票稀釋 65 二、「嫌疑分類」非主要爭議所在 66 貳、Anderson-Burdick test 67 一、滑尺審查 vs 雙軌審查 68 二、衡量「負擔」 69 (一) 認定負擔：定義「選民」範圍 69 (二) 衡量負擔「程度」 72 三、衡量「利益」 72 參、審查模式之選擇 73 一、事件類型及保障面向 74 二、一般性適用之法律（generally applicable laws） 75 第三節 小結 77 第四章 爭議因素之二：Purcell 原則 83 第一節 形成與發展 83 壹、起源：Purcell v. Gonzalez 83 一、事實及爭訟概要 83 二、法院見解 84 (一) 聯邦地方法院 84 (二) 聯邦最高法院 86 三、評析 87 (一) 只是重申既有要求 87 (二) 未正視初步禁制令之審查因素 88 (三) 推論草率且過度誇大 89 貳、發展：持續揮舞之魔仗 91 一、沉潛：2000-2010 年代 91 二、氾濫：2020 年 93 三、餘波：疫情過後 97 四、小結：Purcell 原則與 Purcell 之關係 100 第二節 定位與操作 101 壹、定位 101 一、實務案件之觀察 101 (一) Purcell 原則作為獨立原則 102 (二) Purcell 原則作為審查因素之一 102 (三) 無視 Purcell 原則 103 二、融入既有標準之倡議 103 (一) 弱化其他審查因素之功能 104 (二) 無法精準定義時間點 105 (三) 流於法官主觀恣意 106 貳、限制對象 107 一、限於聯邦法院 107 二、限於下級法院 108 第三節 小結 110 第五章 結論 117 參考文獻 124 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 選舉權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Anderson-Burdick test | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Purcell 原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 暫時權利保護 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 違憲審查 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 居家隔離 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Preliminary Relief | en |
| dc.subject | Constitutional Review | en |
| dc.subject | Purcell Principle | en |
| dc.subject | Anderson-Burdick Test | en |
| dc.subject | Voting Rights | en |
| dc.subject | Home Quarantine | en |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | en |
| dc.title | 疫情期間之選舉權保障：美國經驗之反思 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Protection of Voting Rights During a Pandemic: Reflections on the U.S. Experience | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳信安;林建志 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Hsing-An Chen;Chien-Chih Lin | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | COVID-19,居家隔離,選舉權,Anderson-Burdick test,Purcell 原則,違憲審查,暫時權利保護, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | COVID-19,Home Quarantine,Voting Rights,Anderson-Burdick Test,Purcell Principle,Constitutional Review,Preliminary Relief, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 136 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202402714 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-05 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 法律學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 3.52 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.