Print | University of Richmond Law Review

Enhancing Rural Representation Through Electoral System Diversity

Read Full Article (PDF)

Enhancing Rural Representation Through Electoral System Diversity

Rural Virginians face disparities in outcomes regarding healthcare, access to important infrastructure, and other services. Some disparities may be related to rurality. The sparseness of population in rural areas may limit the sites where people may access services, triggering the need to travel significant distances to obtain goods and services in such areas. Limited access may lead to disparities even when the quality of goods and services in rural areas is high. The disparities affect all rural Virginians, but disproportionately affect rural Virginians of color. The causes of the disparities are complex and myriad, and may be based on race, class, or a combination of both.

The lack of political representation of those who most acutely experience the disparities may help explain the disparities. The interests of racial and political minorities in rural Virginia may not be fully represented in Virginia’s legislative bodies, including the General Assembly. Those rural Virginians have the right to vote, however, their interests may be ignored by their representatives. Legislation that may help minimize disparities may not be forthcoming because the interests of those suffering the disparities may not acutely concern their representatives. New programs to help ease the rural disparities may never be proposed. Proposed programs may receive insufficient support from rural legislators and legislators from non-rural areas of Virginia. The lack of representation of the interests of some rural Virginians may stem from the electoral system used to select representatives, rather than from personal failings of rural representatives.

Henry L. Chambers, Jr. *

* Professor of Law & Austin E. Owen Research Scholar, University of Richmond School of Law

With a Wink and a Nod: How Politicians, Regulators, and Corrupt Coal Companies Exploited Appalachia

Read Full Article (PDF)

With a Wink and a Nod: How Politicians, Regulators, and Corrupt Coal Companies Exploited Appalachia

Environmental regulators treated America’s leading coal companies like Wall Street’s mismanaged banks leading to the “Great Recession”—big coal companies that produced millions of tons of coal were simply too big to fail. With a wink and a nod, federal and state regulators ignored a core provision of federal law that was intended to prevent coal companies from continuing their past practices of plundering Appalachia’s mineral wealth while ravaging her environment.

This Article examines how the coal industry successfully evaded compliance with that law. The consequences of this evasion include mass bankruptcies, thousands of acres of mined land laying unclaimed, the pollution of rivers, streams, and groundwater, and the degradation of the coalfield environment. Taxpayers are left holding the bag. How and why did this happen?

To answer this question, this Article explores the role the coal industry has played for more than a century in shaping the economy, culture, and politics of Appalachia—as well as the poverty, environmental degradation, and hundreds of thousands of dead and injured coal miners left in its wake.

Patrick C. McGinley *

* Judge Charles H. Haden II Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law

Rural Bashing

Read Full Article (PDF)

Rural Bashing

Anti-rural sentiment is expressed in the United States in three major threads. The first is a narrative about the political structure of our representative democracy—an assertion that rural people are over-represented thanks to the structural features of the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College. Because rural residents are less than a fifth of the U.S. population, complaints about this situation are often framed as “minority rule.”

The second thread is related to the first: rural people and their communities get more than their fair share from federal government coffers. The argument, often expressed in terms of “subsidies,” is that rural places enjoy disproportionate government investments, especially from the federal government, in forms such as social safety net payments, infrastructure investments, and payments associated with the Farm Bill. These investments are said not to be justified by the relatively low amount of taxes rural folks pay and their small populations. Some see these investments as a function of earmarks and pork-barrel politics attributable to outsized small-state power in the U.S. Senate. Implicit in this line of thinking is that urban America does not get enough return on its investment in rural America. It may even evince a lack of awareness that rural and urban are interdependent and that urban folks do enjoy—even rely upon the fruits of rural labor.

The third thread, which emerges from the other two, is a culture of annoyance, even disdain, directed by metropolitan dwellers at rural people, their cultural trappings, and their intelligence. This contempt for rural people seems to envision and target an imagined caricature of working-class and illiberal White Americans; it tends to merge negative associations of working-class Whites with rurality in a “hillbilly” or “redneck” stereotype.19 Such contempt effectively “other[s]” rural folks, marginalizing them from mainstream society as manifested in urban norms.

All three of these phenomena fuel an impulse to dismiss rural needs and penalize rural residents. This unfortunate framing necessarily overlooks the complex realities of rural life, as well as the nuances of rural power and powerlessness. Among other goals, we seek in this Article to re-complicate the situation of rural people as a step toward rural-urban détente, even collaboration. Our task is not to rebut every criticism of rural populations and lifestyles. It is, rather, to document the extreme animus and call attention to how it undermines the wellbeing of communities along the rural-urban continuum. We are deeply concerned that rural bashing hinders coalition building that could solve problems afflicting both urban and rural places.

Kaceylee Klein *

Lisa R. Pruitt **

* J.D. and Ph.D. (English) Candidate, University of California, Davis

** Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis

Duped by Dope: The Sackler Family’s Attempt to Escape Opioid Liability and the Need to Close the Non-Debtor Release Loophole

Read Full Article (PDF)

Duped by Dope: The Sackler Family’s Attempt to Escape Opioid Liability and the Need to Close the Non-Debtor Release Loophole

The opioid epidemic continues to rage on in the United States, ravaging its rural populations. One of its main causes? OxyContin. Purdue Pharma (“Purdue”), the maker of OxyContin, aggressively marketed opioids to the American public while racking up a fortune of over $13 billion dollars for its owners,3 the Sackler family. As a result, roughly 3,000 lawsuits were filed against Purdue and members of the Sackler family. Generally, the lawsuits alleged that Purdue and members of the Sackler family knew OxyContin was highly addictive yet aggressively marketed high dosages of the drug and misrepresented the drug as nonaddictive and without side effects. Facing thousands of lawsuits with damages in the trillions, Purdue soon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to halt litigation. Though Purdue and its executives have twice pleaded guilty to perpetuating the opioid epidemic in litigation with the federal government, the Sackler family has yet to be held liable for their involvement.

Bryson T. Strachan *

* JD Candidate, University of Richmond School of Law

Transcript: Opioid Litigation Panel

Read Full Article (PDF)

Transcript: Opioid Litigation Panel

On February 17, 2023, the University of Richmond Law Review hosted a symposium entitled Overlooked America: Addressing Legal Issues in Rural America. A portion of the event focused on the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States, including the causes and effects of certain actions taken by players in the pharmaceutical industry. The Opioid Litigation Panel, transcribed below, brought together four of the most prominent leaders in the fight for justice in the opioid epidemic: Mr. Rick Mountcastle, Mr. Paul Farrell, Mr. Eric Eyre, and Professor Patrick McGinley. The University of Richmond Law Review was so honored to have these individuals speak at the symposium and is thrilled to publish their powerful discussion below.

Panelists:

Rick Mountcastle *

Paul Farrell **

Eric Eyre ***

Patrick C. McGinley ****

* Former United States Attorney, Western District of Virginia

** Attorney, Farrell & Fuller

*** Pulitzer Prize winning journalist

**** Judge Charles H. Haden II Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law

Conditional Purging of Wills

Read Full Article (PDF)

Conditional Purging of Wills

The laws of most states unconditionally purge a testamentary gift to an individual who serves as an attesting witness to the will. Under this approach, the will is valid despite the presence of an interested witness, but the witness forfeits all, some, or none of her gift, depending on the particularities of state law. While the outcome of the interested witness’s gift varies amongst the states that adhere to this majority approach, the determination of what the interested witnesses can retain is the same. The only consideration is whether the beneficiary is also a witness; whether her gift is purged is conditioned on nothing else.

This Article illuminates a substantial, yet largely overlooked, minority approach to the purging of wills–an approach that, contrary to the majority approach, conditions a testamentary gift on considerations other than simply whether the beneficiary served as an attesting witness. This conditional approach to purging is of three types. First, some states condition an interested witness’s gift on considerations related to the testator’s subjective intent. Second, other states condition the purging of testamentary gifts on procedural considerations regarding how the testator executed the will or how the will was proven at probate. Finally, one state conditions gifts to an interested witness on considerations concerning the substance of the gift.

While generally ignored by legal scholars, conditional purging of wills has steadily grown in favor among policymakers, with ten states now following this approach, including California and Texas. Given state legislators’ increasing appetite for conditional purging, a critical analysis of this minority approach is needed now, more than ever, to ensure that conditional purging statutes are founded upon sound policy considerations. To meet this need, this Article analyzes conditional purging statutes in light of the law of will’s overarching goal of accurately and efficiently carrying out the testator’s intended estate plan.

Ultimately, this Article argues that this minority trend is largely misguided because existing conditional purging statutes (1) do not protect the testator from wrongdoing aimed at undermining her intent, (2) make the probate court’s task of administering the decedent’s estate less efficient, and (3) have proven difficult for policymakers to clearly draft and for probate courts to predictably implement. State policymakers should therefore either adhere to the majority approach or more carefully tailor conditional purging statutes to further the policy goals of the law of wills.

Mark Glover *

* Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law.