- 學位論文
疫情期間之選舉權保障：美國經驗之反思
Protection of Voting Rights During a Pandemic: Reflections on the U.S. Experience
摘要
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。
並列摘要
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.