Charles N. Davis’s research while affiliated with Southern Methodist University and other places

In recent years, privatization has touched nearly every area of public life. Increased privatization efforts have posed increasing problems for public access to governmental records when a governmental function has been privatized. Records long open to public inspection now are being created, maintained, and controlled by private businesses often at odds with the very purpose of public records laws. The authors examine this problem and offer possible solutions to the problems caused by this increasing trend.

Open meetings laws have long frustrated access advocates, who allege that prosecutors do little to ensure compliance. The states provide a variety of enforcement powers in their open meetings laws, but powerful anecdotal evidence exists supporting the contention that there is little enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion plays an obvious, though largely unstudied, role in the enforcement picture. To gain an understanding of the role of statutory language, prosecutorial discretion and other factors on open meetings enforcement efforts, the researchers conducted a national study of the officials responsible for enforcing open meetings laws. The survey offers the first national data on local enforcement activity and the first look at how prosecutors across the country view open meetings laws, illustrating the many weaknesses in current enforcement schemes. The authors argue that the data support the re?examination of the way access laws are enforced.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Congress’ 1992 must‐carry provisions. The divided Court's opinion was inconclusive, but the reasoning of the justices highlights a broader theme. That theme, the notion of positive liberty, suggests that the proper role for government under the First Amendment is to become an active regulator in order to advance certain social interests. This study analyzes how the concept of positive liberty affected the differing constitutional visions expressed by the justices.