Judging Democracy

This timely and provocative book makes important contributions to a number of fields including Canadian constitutional law and politics, comparative constitutional law, election law, and democratic theory. It is engaging and accessible, and it will be of interest to a wide audience. The book's central convergence thesis is a valuable addition to the ongoing debate over the similarities and differences between American and Canadian constitutional law.

Election Law Journal

Judging Democracy is a very succinct and focused treatment of a well-defined body of cases, and as such it successfully questions many myths about differences between the United States and Canada. The focus of the book also makes it ideal as a starting point for much broader considerations of the relationship between the courts and legislatures, or between the American and Canadian legal system.

Robert G. Boatright, American Review of Canadian Studies

While the power of judicial review is often seen as fundamental to protection of individual liberties, it is less often conceived as a vehicle for the preservation of democracy. There is also a tendency to overplay the distinction between Canadian and American constitutional jurisprudence as it pertains to rights. Manfredi and Rush do a masterful job of articulating and comparing the roles played by courts in Canada and the United States in the name of guarding against threats to democratic rights.

Michael Lusztig, Southern Methodist University

Manfredi and Rush present a compelling argument (and convincingly argue) that convergence and not divergence characterizes the democratic process and jurisprudence of the Canadian and American Supreme Courts. However, they present one important exception to the trend of convergence—the propensity of the Supreme Court of Canada to impose its vision of democracy, demonstrated in Sauvé II and the issue of prisoners' voting rights. Arguing that a more respectful dialogue between the branches of government exists in the United States, Manfredi and Rush challenge the notion that Canadian democracy is more advanced because of Charter dialogue between Parliament and the Supreme Court.

James B. Kelly, Concordia University

This is an important, concise, and well-written book that provides readers with bold insights into the converging patterns of jurisprudence in the field of election law in Canada and the United States. This work utilizes three different case studies to challenge the conventional wisdom that the two courts have taken distinctive paths in their understanding of core democratic values and also makes an important contribution to the debate about the ongoing dialogue between courts and legislatures in the Canadian setting. Ultimately, this book makes a significant original contribution to the field of election law, an area of fundamental concern to all scholars studying democratic systems.

Cynthia Ostberg, University of the Pacific