What do you think?
Rate this book
Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States
The 2000 presidential race resulted in the highest-profile ballot battle in over a century. But it is far from the only American election determined by a handful of votes and marred by claims of fraud. Since the founding of the nation, violence frequently erupted as the votes were being counted, and more than a few elections produced manifestly unfair results. Despite America's claim to be the world's greatest democracy, its adherence to the basic tenets of democratic elections-the ability to count ballots accurately and fairly even when the stakes are high-has always been shaky. A rigged gubernatorial election in New York in 1792 nearly ended in calls for another revolution, and an 1899 gubernatorial race even resulted in an assassination. Though acts of violence have decreased in frequency over the past century, fairness and accuracy in ballot counting nonetheless remains a basic problem in American political life.
In Ballot Battles, Edward Foley presents a sweeping history of election controversies in the United States, tracing how their evolution generated legal precedents that ultimately transformed how we determine who wins and who loses. While weaving a narrative spanning over two centuries, Foley repeatedly returns to an originating event: because the Founding Fathers despised parties and never envisioned the emergence of a party system, they wrote a constitution that did not provide clear solutions for high-stakes and highly-contested elections in which two parties could pool resources against one another. Moreover, in the American political system that actually developed, politicians are beholden to the parties which they represent - and elected officials have typically had an outsized say in determining the outcomes of extremely close elections that involve recounts. This underlying structural problem, more than anything else, explains why intense ballot battles that leave one side feeling aggrieved will continue to occur for the foreseeable future.
American democracy has improved dramatically over the last two centuries. But the same cannot be said for the ways in which we determine who wins the very close races. From the founding until today, there has been little progress toward fixing the problem. Indeed, supporters of John Jay in 1792 and opponents of Lyndon Johnson in the 1948 Texas Senate race would find it easy to commiserate with Al Gore after the 2000 election. Ballot Battles is not only the first full chronicle of contested elections in the US. It also provides a powerful explanation of why the American election system has been-and remains-so ineffective at deciding the tightest races in a way that all sides will agree is fair.
In Ballot Battles, Edward Foley presents a sweeping history of election controversies in the United States, tracing how their evolution generated legal precedents that ultimately transformed how we determine who wins and who loses. While weaving a narrative spanning over two centuries, Foley repeatedly returns to an originating event: because the Founding Fathers despised parties and never envisioned the emergence of a party system, they wrote a constitution that did not provide clear solutions for high-stakes and highly-contested elections in which two parties could pool resources against one another. Moreover, in the American political system that actually developed, politicians are beholden to the parties which they represent - and elected officials have typically had an outsized say in determining the outcomes of extremely close elections that involve recounts. This underlying structural problem, more than anything else, explains why intense ballot battles that leave one side feeling aggrieved will continue to occur for the foreseeable future.
American democracy has improved dramatically over the last two centuries. But the same cannot be said for the ways in which we determine who wins the very close races. From the founding until today, there has been little progress toward fixing the problem. Indeed, supporters of John Jay in 1792 and opponents of Lyndon Johnson in the 1948 Texas Senate race would find it easy to commiserate with Al Gore after the 2000 election. Ballot Battles is not only the first full chronicle of contested elections in the US. It also provides a powerful explanation of why the American election system has been-and remains-so ineffective at deciding the tightest races in a way that all sides will agree is fair.
496 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2015
22 people are currently reading
1024 people want to read
About the author
Edward B. Foley
9 books10 followersEdward B. Foley directs the election law program at Ohio State University, where he also holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law. Previously, Foley clerked for Chief Judge Patricia M. Wald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Harry Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court. He has also served as State Solicitor in the office of Ohio's Attorney General, where he was responsible for the state's appellate and constitutional litigation. He is the author of the acclaimed book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States (Oxford University Press) and co-author of Election Law and Litigation: The Judicial Regulation of Politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 29, 2020
Edward Foley apparently did not get the memo, books are supposed to start and finish strong. The center of the book can be a little weaker, but catch the reader early and then leave them wanting more.
Ballot Battles was the exact opposite. It started out weak and ends weak, but the guts of the book were supperb.
This book could have been subtitled: "How the History Lead America to Gore v Bush." The 2000 presidential election was not the subject of the book, but it was definitely the culmination of of it.
Foley traces us through a number of well known and not so well known election controversies. The book does not focus on cases wherein basic fraud was perpetrate. Nor does it discuss gerrymandering, ballot/voter suppression, or even the various political machines that cast elections into doubt.
Ballot Battles focuses on the disputed elections that resulted in court cases, legislative actions, or major precedence setters. These included:
1) A case in Otswego Co (Cooperstown) NY in the 1790's, wherein the votes of 3 counties were thrown out because the Sheriff's commission had expired and had yet to be renewed.
2) Ballots that are discounted because they were misspelled (at a time where write-ins were the norm)
3) Ballots that are discounted because, while they contained the same information, they were printed with the wrong voting location. (E.g. people voted at precinct 1, but the ballot was written for precinct 2---often times this "mistake" was on purpose.)
4) 1872 vote wherein LA and AR had their electoral votes cast out due to fraud---but nothing came of it because Grant won in a landslide. The legal actions in 1872, had a direct bearing on the events of 1876.
5) 1876 Tilden-Hayes ---also known as the Fraud of the Century.
6) The 1948 LBJ-Coke Stevenson Senatorial race---few people doubt that LBJ literally stole the election from Stevenson. But Justice Black essentially affirmed previous Supreme Court rulings that the SC didn't have jurisdiction on state elections (this would be later over turned and revisted with Gore v Bush.)
7) Elections wherein ballots were rejected because voters were expeced to cross out those they didn't want---but if there were multiple candidates and all of the candidates were not crossed out, the ballot was discounted. (1960 Kennedy victory.)
8) Elections wherein obvious fraud was proven on "down ballot" races---for example the 1960 Presidential race where it was assumed that interfering with a presidential election was above reproach.
9) Absentee ballots that are cast, but dated with a date other than the election date. E.g. you mail in a ballot on Nov 2 and sign it Nov 2, but election date is Nov 3---- your ballot does not count!
The culmination of the book was a the 2000 Presidential election---which was very well handled. Foley explains the decisions made at different points and how they followed (or did not follow) various precedence. He also defends the actions of the Supreme Court eventhough he does not necessarily agree with them.
The one thing that is clear from reading this book, voter fraud is not the issue some would like to make it out to be---election fraud is.
Ballot Battles was the exact opposite. It started out weak and ends weak, but the guts of the book were supperb.
This book could have been subtitled: "How the History Lead America to Gore v Bush." The 2000 presidential election was not the subject of the book, but it was definitely the culmination of of it.
Foley traces us through a number of well known and not so well known election controversies. The book does not focus on cases wherein basic fraud was perpetrate. Nor does it discuss gerrymandering, ballot/voter suppression, or even the various political machines that cast elections into doubt.
Ballot Battles focuses on the disputed elections that resulted in court cases, legislative actions, or major precedence setters. These included:
1) A case in Otswego Co (Cooperstown) NY in the 1790's, wherein the votes of 3 counties were thrown out because the Sheriff's commission had expired and had yet to be renewed.
2) Ballots that are discounted because they were misspelled (at a time where write-ins were the norm)
3) Ballots that are discounted because, while they contained the same information, they were printed with the wrong voting location. (E.g. people voted at precinct 1, but the ballot was written for precinct 2---often times this "mistake" was on purpose.)
4) 1872 vote wherein LA and AR had their electoral votes cast out due to fraud---but nothing came of it because Grant won in a landslide. The legal actions in 1872, had a direct bearing on the events of 1876.
5) 1876 Tilden-Hayes ---also known as the Fraud of the Century.
6) The 1948 LBJ-Coke Stevenson Senatorial race---few people doubt that LBJ literally stole the election from Stevenson. But Justice Black essentially affirmed previous Supreme Court rulings that the SC didn't have jurisdiction on state elections (this would be later over turned and revisted with Gore v Bush.)
7) Elections wherein ballots were rejected because voters were expeced to cross out those they didn't want---but if there were multiple candidates and all of the candidates were not crossed out, the ballot was discounted. (1960 Kennedy victory.)
8) Elections wherein obvious fraud was proven on "down ballot" races---for example the 1960 Presidential race where it was assumed that interfering with a presidential election was above reproach.
9) Absentee ballots that are cast, but dated with a date other than the election date. E.g. you mail in a ballot on Nov 2 and sign it Nov 2, but election date is Nov 3---- your ballot does not count!
The culmination of the book was a the 2000 Presidential election---which was very well handled. Foley explains the decisions made at different points and how they followed (or did not follow) various precedence. He also defends the actions of the Supreme Court eventhough he does not necessarily agree with them.
The one thing that is clear from reading this book, voter fraud is not the issue some would like to make it out to be---election fraud is.
December 15, 2015
This book took me a while to get through, but it was such a fascinating read! I really enjoy reading books exploring the political issues that the US has dealt with from inception to now. There are a lot of people out there who want to see the past through rose coloured glasses, and pretend that everything was perfect back in the good old days and now it's just a partisan mess.
Books like this just prove that, no... It's always been a partisan mess.
But seriously, the US has had growing pains regarding the specifics of vote counting law since the very beginning. The first place to even have a dispute was Pennsylvania of all places.
Some good things to wikipedia if you don't want to pick up the book: The Buckshot War of Pennsylvania 1838, Bashford vs Barstow, Hayes v Tilden which was the presidential election that really went crazysauce, New Yorks Stolen Senate of 1891, and Ballot Box 13 involving Lyndon Johnson and some of the most flagrant voter fraud on the record.
There is an entire Bush v Gore chapter, as well as an aftermath chapter. Lots of good information that I didn't know about the specifics of the court cases involved. It's scary how easily that entire situation could have turned into a constitutional crisis had Gore not conceded.
Overall, this was a great read if you have an interest in election law, specifically how ballots have been counted and the cases revolving around that specific area of law.
Copy courtesy of Oxford University Press, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Books like this just prove that, no... It's always been a partisan mess.
But seriously, the US has had growing pains regarding the specifics of vote counting law since the very beginning. The first place to even have a dispute was Pennsylvania of all places.
Some good things to wikipedia if you don't want to pick up the book: The Buckshot War of Pennsylvania 1838, Bashford vs Barstow, Hayes v Tilden which was the presidential election that really went crazysauce, New Yorks Stolen Senate of 1891, and Ballot Box 13 involving Lyndon Johnson and some of the most flagrant voter fraud on the record.
There is an entire Bush v Gore chapter, as well as an aftermath chapter. Lots of good information that I didn't know about the specifics of the court cases involved. It's scary how easily that entire situation could have turned into a constitutional crisis had Gore not conceded.
Overall, this was a great read if you have an interest in election law, specifically how ballots have been counted and the cases revolving around that specific area of law.
Copy courtesy of Oxford University Press, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
December 1, 2019
There has been no shortage of disputed elections in the United States, and there are some predictable reasons for that. For one, Americans have always had diverse political opinions from the beginning of our history. For another, elections have always meant something. Even in colonial days America's elections have been consequential because of the importance of developing local consensus about behaviors involving self-defense and the problematic relationship with metropolitan Britain. Such matters only became even more important with independence and the continuing need to build legitimacy in one's government for desired actions as well as dealing with the problematic relationship between local elites and state governments as well as state elites and the federal government. Likewise, the use of force and fraud has never been absent in American political history either down to the present day. These elements have guaranteed that politics would be something fought over by Americans, and such fights have prompted a lot of books, some of which are hostile to different aspects of the political disagreements and contentions that we have and this book is certainly no different in that regard from a great many of those books.
This book is more than 300 pages long and is divided into twelve chapters. After acknowledgements a prologue and introduction discuss the missing impartiality in our political system and the goal of understanding the past for the sake of a better future respectively. The author then goes on to discuss the colonial era (1) as well as novelty of elections for chief executives in early American history (2). There is then a discussion of the entrenchment of two party systems (3) that are closely divided as well as the way that votes are counted in times of crisis like 1876 (4). After that there is a discussion of Haves vs. Tilden (5) as well as the guilded age and its competitive elections not unlike our own period (6). Then there is a discussion of the missed opportunities of the progressive era (7) and then the tarnished ideal of American democracy at the middle of the 20th century (8). Then there is the legacy of increased expectations of the 1960's (9) and the emergence of intensified partisanship in the 80's and 90's (10). After that there is a discussion of Florida's 2000 election (11) and the demand for election fairness (12). Then the book ends with a conclusion about the quest for a fair count and an appendix on overtime elections as well as notes and an index.
One thing this book does that is important is set contemporary disputes over elections in a context that demonstrates that these conflicts are by no means new. We may be prone to think of American political corruption as a partisan problem but it is more a problem of the darkness within human hearts, the desire for power and the lack of willingness of accepting the verdict of the people, however that can best be determined. Coercion is a major aspect of political life. On the one hand, regimes need the legitimacy that comes from popular votes, but no one actually wants to be governed by the will of the people, so democracy must be managed somehow. Either that means people that one does not want to regard and respect must be kept from voting or the votes themselves must be subverted through fraud, and it is little surprise that these elements should be found over and over again whether we are dealing with urban machines or rural election management, Landslide Lyndy or the contemporary issues of Bush vs. Gore and election mail fraud in Oregon. Professional bureaucrats and technology are not going to cure the darkness inside the hearts of men and women who want power.
This book is more than 300 pages long and is divided into twelve chapters. After acknowledgements a prologue and introduction discuss the missing impartiality in our political system and the goal of understanding the past for the sake of a better future respectively. The author then goes on to discuss the colonial era (1) as well as novelty of elections for chief executives in early American history (2). There is then a discussion of the entrenchment of two party systems (3) that are closely divided as well as the way that votes are counted in times of crisis like 1876 (4). After that there is a discussion of Haves vs. Tilden (5) as well as the guilded age and its competitive elections not unlike our own period (6). Then there is a discussion of the missed opportunities of the progressive era (7) and then the tarnished ideal of American democracy at the middle of the 20th century (8). Then there is the legacy of increased expectations of the 1960's (9) and the emergence of intensified partisanship in the 80's and 90's (10). After that there is a discussion of Florida's 2000 election (11) and the demand for election fairness (12). Then the book ends with a conclusion about the quest for a fair count and an appendix on overtime elections as well as notes and an index.
One thing this book does that is important is set contemporary disputes over elections in a context that demonstrates that these conflicts are by no means new. We may be prone to think of American political corruption as a partisan problem but it is more a problem of the darkness within human hearts, the desire for power and the lack of willingness of accepting the verdict of the people, however that can best be determined. Coercion is a major aspect of political life. On the one hand, regimes need the legitimacy that comes from popular votes, but no one actually wants to be governed by the will of the people, so democracy must be managed somehow. Either that means people that one does not want to regard and respect must be kept from voting or the votes themselves must be subverted through fraud, and it is little surprise that these elements should be found over and over again whether we are dealing with urban machines or rural election management, Landslide Lyndy or the contemporary issues of Bush vs. Gore and election mail fraud in Oregon. Professional bureaucrats and technology are not going to cure the darkness inside the hearts of men and women who want power.
July 10, 2024
When Foley’s book focuses on major, pertinent cases of fraud and battles at the ballot - the 1876 and 1960 elections, the Gilded Age chaos, LBJ’s political origins - his narrative is enriching and riveting. But far too much attention is paid to local squabbles that do not sustain the same interest or provide the same macro historical lessons. These parts and others read too much like a textbook. The high point is Foley’s masterful navigation of the narrative of the 2000 election, weaving it with past jurisprudence, and pushing back successfully against a lot of the conventional wisdom about this episode. His work is worth reading for the central takeaway that there has been far more contested elections in America than most of us have learned in history class (including military in the streets, political assassinations, and almost two separate inaugurations occurring); and thus it is an instructive education for these polarizing contemporary times.
June 21, 2019
I won this book in the giveaway! Very informative and interesting.
September 12, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, Oxford University Press, for providing this book for review consideration in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Ballot Battles: The History Of Disputed Elections In The United States, by Edward B. Foley.
I had originally read this book on December 5, 2016. But, I was excited to see that there is a new edition, which includes Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. I had originally given this book an A.
This book shows that disputed elections, as well at blatant attempts to use legal procedures to steal elections, has been a constant throughout all of US history. It dated back to the time between independence and the Constitution, was part of the first congressional elections under the Constitution and continues to this day.
Among the many highlights of this book are looks at the Massachusetts governor election of 1806, an attempt by the Democrats to steal control of the House after the Civil War midterms in 1862, the presidential elections of 1876, 2000 and 2020 and Lyndon Johnson’s theft of the 1948 Senate primary election.
This was an excellent book, but I do have to bring up one flaw. The author participated in the whitewashing of Nixon’s actions after the 1960 election by claiming he did not challenge the election. But, there were challenges followed in 11 states and, despite the book’s claim that he didn’t challenge Illinois or Texas, lawsuits were followed in both states. And, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in seasons 2 of her excellent podcast series, Ultra, the plan to file alternate electors to create January 6 chaos had originated with the Nixon 1960 campaign.
Despite that flaw, I am going to disagree with the grade that I had given the first edition. I had originally given this book an A. But, after reading the revised and expanded edition, this is not an A. It is instead an A+, which entitles it to induction into the Hall of Fame.
Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on September 12, 2024.
Thank you, Oxford University Press, for providing this book for review consideration in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Ballot Battles: The History Of Disputed Elections In The United States, by Edward B. Foley.
I had originally read this book on December 5, 2016. But, I was excited to see that there is a new edition, which includes Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. I had originally given this book an A.
This book shows that disputed elections, as well at blatant attempts to use legal procedures to steal elections, has been a constant throughout all of US history. It dated back to the time between independence and the Constitution, was part of the first congressional elections under the Constitution and continues to this day.
Among the many highlights of this book are looks at the Massachusetts governor election of 1806, an attempt by the Democrats to steal control of the House after the Civil War midterms in 1862, the presidential elections of 1876, 2000 and 2020 and Lyndon Johnson’s theft of the 1948 Senate primary election.
This was an excellent book, but I do have to bring up one flaw. The author participated in the whitewashing of Nixon’s actions after the 1960 election by claiming he did not challenge the election. But, there were challenges followed in 11 states and, despite the book’s claim that he didn’t challenge Illinois or Texas, lawsuits were followed in both states. And, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in seasons 2 of her excellent podcast series, Ultra, the plan to file alternate electors to create January 6 chaos had originated with the Nixon 1960 campaign.
Despite that flaw, I am going to disagree with the grade that I had given the first edition. I had originally given this book an A. But, after reading the revised and expanded edition, this is not an A. It is instead an A+, which entitles it to induction into the Hall of Fame.
Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on September 12, 2024.
January 31, 2016
We think of extremely close votes as aberrations. Edward Foley shows in painstaking (and sometimes painful) detail that elections ending in a virtual tie have been occurring throughout U.S. history, and when they happen they throw the election system into a tizzy. Bush v. Gore is the best-known recent example, but there are plenty more. Blood has been shed over election outcomes. Foley focuses on the rules and process for counting ballots, not casting them, at the federal, state and, in a few cases, local levels. He argues that politically charged “ballot battles” need a better solution than Democratic and Republican lawyers duking it out to decide what votes count. Foley’s proposal is a three-person tribunal, such as was used in Minnesota in the 2008 Senate election. One member would be a Republican; one, a Democrat; and one, neutral. The book’s many examples convinced me that a better process would help assure fairer decisions on who won. The problem with Foley’s proposal is finding and agreeing on that one perfectly neutral savior.
May 26, 2016
This is a detailed and highly readable history of some of the closest - and most consequential - elections in U.S. history, from New York's 1792 gubernatorial election to Lyndon Johnson's stolen 1948 Senate race, to Bush-Gore 2000 and several state-wide cliffhangers since then. Time after time, the outcome of an important election has been uncertain long after the votes are counted, triggering protracted legal disputes and undermining confidence in our political system. Yet, the author argues, our country has failed repeatedly to address the causes of the chronic problems that bring us the brink of political chaos more often than we care to admit. You won't want to miss the fascinating chapter on the 2000 Presidential election, which is the best 25-page description I've read of how and why Al Gore won the most votes but lost the election. Highly recommended for anyone interested in American history, politics, elections or law.
January 30, 2016
While I enjoy reading about elections and campaigns as much as the next guy, you better be ready to get through a bit of legal jargon and lots of ballot counting minutiae for this book. The details of the contested elections are interesting, although as you get closer to today, the matters get murkier.
The author's point that he tries to hammer home in just about every chapter is that states and the Federal Government need to establish some sort of independent body to decide disputed elections. For the most part, people just make up the rules as they go along. (Or it seemed that way to me.)
And as contentious as the 1876 and 2000 Presidential elections were, at least they were peaceful. The 1899 Kentucky governor's race saw one of the candidates murdered during the dispute over ballot counting. And that guy won. (Sort of.)
The author's point that he tries to hammer home in just about every chapter is that states and the Federal Government need to establish some sort of independent body to decide disputed elections. For the most part, people just make up the rules as they go along. (Or it seemed that way to me.)
And as contentious as the 1876 and 2000 Presidential elections were, at least they were peaceful. The 1899 Kentucky governor's race saw one of the candidates murdered during the dispute over ballot counting. And that guy won. (Sort of.)
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews