Site Meter

State Admission/Exclusion on a Partisan Basis

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    Kansas’ population in 1860 was 107,206, which was small vis-a-vis others, but a few thousand less than Delaware and much more than Oregon, which was just made a state.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population

    The minimum for a new state was 40,000 by one account. Nevada didn’t make that, so “bereft” indeed.

  2. ctr says:

    I don’t think I share your “modern understanding … that admitting a state for partisan gain (say DC or Puerto Rico) would be wrong…” Why should that decision be any less political than any other decision a legislature makes? I can understand a reason why Senate confirmations are should be non-political out of deference to the office of the president. And similarly, the rule of law requires that judges be non-political, or at least pretend to be, in deference to the political branches. I can even see why redistricting decisions should be non-political, to defer to the people to pick their representatives rather than vice versa. But the decision of whether to expand a government to cover new territory and new people seems to be the ultimate of political questions. If democrats want to include a group of people because they share political values, or vice versa, then that seems to be precisely the sort of concern that motivates the creation of a polity in the first place.