Law Professor James A. Gardner has recently authored “Deliberation or Tabulation? The Self-Undermining Constitutional Architecture of Election Campaigns.” It is in the Buffalo Law Review, April 2007, vol. 54, no. 5. It points out that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that election campaigns are times when parties and candidates try to persuade the electorate to a particular point of view. Yet, many U.S. Supreme Court election law decisions legitimize laws that make it impossible or very difficult for new and relatively unpopular ideas to be heard.

There are at least a dozen scholarly articles in law journals, cricitizing the U.S. Supreme Court for being to eager to uphold restrictive ballot access laws. As far as is known, there are no scholarly articles that praise the U.S. Supreme Court record on ballot access.