The 2025 Essay Question
Do income inequality and wealth inequality impact the health of representative democracy in the United States?
- If your answer is yes, what is the impact? How is it manifested?
- If the impact is negative, do we have mechanisms in the U.S. Constitution to address it? If so, what are they, and why are they not working effectively?
- If the constitutional mechanisms to deal with this issue are inadequate, should the Constitution be amended to limit wealth inequality and income inequality, and if so, what would your proposed amendment be and what would it do?
- Conversely, if you contend that wealth and income inequality do not impact the health of U.S. democracy, explain why, and defend your answer with evidence.
BACKGROUND
The United States Constitution relies on the concepts that political disagreements will be resolved through legislation and that legislators will represent the interests of their constituents by engaging in good faith discussion and compromise. It also presumed that the country would be governed by the rule of law, and that the three branches of government would act as checks on each other.
In 1787, in The Federalist Papers they wrote to encourage ratification of the original Constitution, founders James Madison and Alexander Hamilton identified “factions” as a potentially terminal threat to an effective government and to peaceful society. See https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text (Library of Congress, The Federalist Papers).
Madison recognized factions as “this dangerous vice,” writing that “[t]he instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.” He defined a “faction” as “a number of citizens, whether . . . a majority or a minority . . . who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed <sic> to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” See The Federalist No. 10.
Turning to the causes of factions, he explained that “[t]he latent causes . . . are . . . sown in the nature of man,” and explained that citizens can become “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good,” with “the most common and durable source of factions” being the “unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” The Federalist No. 10.
Madison also predicted that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” of government. The Federalist No. 10. He believed that having a large republic would protect against “factious leaders” who “may kindle a flame in their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” Hamilton, quoting Montesquieu, made a similar argument in The Federalist No. 9. See also The Federalist No. 51, in which Madison discusses the role of a republican government with checks and balances in protecting against the power of factions and preserving the rights of a minority against tyrannical majorities.
Madison and Hamilton, however, could not have envisioned the modern political ecosystem in which we operate. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were no political parties, the election system and the impact of money in that system was not yet tested, and there was not the modern media environment, where the internet enables misinformation and disinformation to spread more widely and quickly than ever before, amplified by algorithms and AI social media bots, and impacting a voting populace with differing levels of information and civic literacy. We are living in a highly polarized political environment.
Income inequality and wealth inequality in the United States have increased over the last 40 years. See, e.g., October 2, 2024 Report of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office: “Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2022;” see also “A Guide to Statistics in Historical Trends in Income Inequality,” published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated Dec. 11, 2024.
People around the world, including majorities in the United States, view such inequalities as challenging. See, e.g., Pew Research Center Report “Economic Inequality Seen as Major Challenge Around the World,” published January 29, 2025; see also “America’s Never Been Wealthier. Here’s Why it Doesn’t Feel that Way,” by Talmon Joseph Smith, March 31, 2025, The New York Times.
Are these circumstances impacting democracy in the United States? Explain why or why not, how, and support your conclusions with research and evidence.
Rules for the Contest
Eligibility: This contest is open to all students (undergraduate and graduate) who will be enrolled at Marshall University full-time in the fall of 2025.
Deadline: Your essay must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, September 15, 2025. Submissions are to be made via email to Patricia.Proctor@marshall.edu. Both a PDF and Microsoft Word version of your essay must be attached to your submission email. Use the “read receipt” feature to ensure your entry was received.
Judges: Entries will be evaluated by a panel of judges.
Length: Your essay is expected to be approximately 8 to 15 pages long, though this page range is reasonably flexible (the essay can be slightly longer or shorter).
Writing and Research: You are to proofread your work carefully to ensure that it meets collegiate writing standards. Your entry can rely on the sources cited above, all of which can be accessed through the Marshall University library online. In addition, you should conduct and cite your own research.
Citation of Sources and Plagiarism: You are expected to cite sources to support your arguments, including peer-reviewed and scholarly sources. Your research should reflect a high degree of information literacy skills demonstrated by the quality of materials you rely upon. You must be sure that all your sources are properly cited and thus can be located and verified by the contest judges. You should include internal citations adjacent to the material relied upon and a bibliography at the end of your paper.
All entries will be submitted to plagiarism-detecting software programs and checked to ensure that they comply with the Marshall University policies regarding academic integrity.
Your writing should be your own. Contestants are prohibited from using generative AI in any way in this contest. The use of generative AI in this contest will be considered a violation of Marshall’s Academic Dishonesty Policy and will be dealt with accordingly.
History of the Contest
The Dan O’Hanlon Essay Competition was established in 2009, after an anonymous donor requested that Marshall find a way to promote scholarship related to the Constitution and simultaneously honor retired Cabell County Circuit Court Judge Dan O’Hanlon. Prior to his long career on the bench, Judge O’Hanlon served as professor and chair of the Marshall University Criminal Justice Department. In 2007, he was selected by the West Virginia Justice Association as Judge of the Year.
Previous Winners
2024
- Tyler Farley (1st) – Rethinking the American Immigration System: A Bipartisan Blueprint for Congressional Reform
- Miriam Crookshanks (2nd) – With Fear for Our Democracy, I Dissent: Restoring Public Trust in the Separation of Powers
2023
- Brendin Flinn (1st) – Healing a Divided Nation: A Path to Repairing Democratic Norms in the Face of Pernicious Polarization and Political Violence
- Connor Waller (2nd) – Finding and Declaring Our Conscience: The Battle for Democracy and the Principles of “Americanism”
2022
- Nicolas Raffinengo (1st) – Equality Throughout a Nation The Equal Rights Amendment is the Key to Protect All Citizens
- Addie McDaniel (2nd) – The Potential Abandonment of Stare Decisis and the Necessity of the Equal Rights Amendment
2021
- Brendin Flinn (1st) – Adapting to the New Public Forum: Free Expression in the Age of Big Tech
- YÉMAYA (2nd) – www.g-dd@m/ a Defense for the Preservation of Section 230 of the CDA
2020
- Brendin Flinn (1st) – Justice’s Vision: Historicizing Black Lives Matter as the Modern Abolition Movement
- Payton Fitchpatrick (2nd) – “Striking” Similarities Between The West Virginia Mine Wars and George Floyd Protests: How They Pertain to Civil Disobedience and the Civic Duty All Americans Have to Keep Their “American Creed”
2019
- Miranda Smith (1st) – Rebalancing the Scales: The Need for a Limited and Nonpartisan Supreme Court Amid Threats to Its Legitimacy and Impartiality
- Melody Shea Russell (2nd) – A Case for Changing Congressional Process, not the Supreme Court
2017
- Erin L. Shaver (1st) – Fighting Harmful Words: Balancing Free Speech and Student Well-being for Public Colleges and Universities
- Matthew Gallagher (2nd) – Free Speech, the University, and the Examined Life
2016
- Gregory Ward (1st) – Defending the Fence: The Electoral College’s Vital Role within Madison’s Constitutional Model
- Cindy D. Krepps (2nd) – Dissolving the Electoral College: America’s Cry for Change
2015
- Nicholas Alexander O’Donnell (1st) – SuperPAC Ed: How Citizens United Sets a Faulty Precedent for Corruption and Distortion
- Sepideh Ghenatnevi Dunham (2nd) – Citizens Unite: Combating Corporate Suppression of the Voice of the People
2014
- Sophia D. Mills (1st) – A Step Too Far: Protecting Privacy in a Digital Age
- Olivia Milam (2nd) – The NSA’s Bulk Metadata Program and the Fourth Amendment: Holding True to the Spirit of the Constitution in the Face of Technology
2013
- Laurel Anne Peace (1st) – Disobeying the Constitution
- Adam Shaver (2nd) – The Constitution’s Necessity in American Government
2012
- Joshua Thompson (1st) – “The Individual’s Voice in Democracy: The Right to Vote”
- Lesley Cruickshank (2nd) – “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Preclearance and Public Policy”
2011
- W. Austin Smith II (1st) – “Constitutional Interpretation”
- Justin Setliff (2nd) – “The View of an Originalist”
2010
- Aaron Preece – “The Right to Free Speech in an Academic Setting”
2009
- Joshua Cottle – “Protecting the Constitution: Balancing the Rights of the People and the Union”