-
1
-
-
84888114902
-
-
42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 to 1973bb-1 (2006 & Supp. V 2011)
-
42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 to 1973bb-1 (2006 & Supp. V 2011).
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
84888115996
-
-
note
-
William N. Eskridge Jr. & John Ferejohn, A Republic of Statutes 27 (2010) (describing the VRA as the paradigmatic superstatute embodying deeper constitutional values than ordinary legislation: "Indeed, superstatutes sometimes rival Constitutional rules, bending an ambiguous or even hostile Constitutional tradition to acquiesce in superstatutory in novations. For example, the Voting Rights Act has not only changed the character of our democ racy, it has altered our Constitutional federalism as well.").
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
84888080078
-
-
133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013)
-
133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
84888083921
-
-
note
-
Shelby County brought suit challenging its obligation to submit all proposed changes for preclearance by the DOJ pursuant to section 5 of the VRA. The Court's decision avoided frontal- ly addressing the constitutionality of section 5 by instead focusing on the formula in section 4 of the Act for determining which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, which turned on two fac tors: (1) whether the state "had maintained a test or device as a prerequisite to voting as of No vember 1, 1964," and (2) whether fewer than fifty percent of voting-age residents voted or were registered to vote in the presidential election of 1964. See id. at 2619, 2631. While this formula has received periodic updates, most notably to include three boroughs of New York City in 1970 and the entire state of Texas in 1975, the covered districts remained largely unchanged from 1965 to the most recent renewal of the Act in 2006.
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
84888102315
-
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2631
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2631.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
61449329802
-
Sailing to Byzantium
-
Richard J. Finneran ed., 2d ed
-
W. B. Yeats, Sailing to Byzantium, in 1 The Collected Works of W. B. Yeats 197, 197 (Richard J. Finneran ed., 2d ed. 1997).
-
(1997)
The Collected Works of W. B. Yeats
, vol.1
, Issue.197
, pp. 197
-
-
Yeats, W.B.1
-
8
-
-
84888090791
-
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2631
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2631.
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
84888081599
-
-
note
-
Only Justice Thomas, concurring in full with the Court's opinion, would have reached fur ther to strike down section 5 of the Act as well. See id. at 2631-33 (Thomas, J., concurring).
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
84888092999
-
-
note
-
There has always been a strategic component to efforts at disenfranchisement, though not always playing out along modern partisan cleavages. Even during the height of the Jim Crow period, black disenfranchisement was driven in significant part by the partisan political ambitions of the more conservative, large landowning white elite to destroy effective political coalitions of black and poorer white populists.
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
0042373636
-
Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon
-
Richard H. Pildes, Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon, 17 Const. Comment. 295, 301-305 (2000).
-
(2000)
Const. Comment
, vol.17
, Issue.295
, pp. 301-305
-
-
Pildes, R.H.1
-
12
-
-
84888086723
-
-
note
-
369 U.S. 186 (1962) (finding that state apportionment claims are subject to review in federal court under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution).
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
8744287723
-
Essay, Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a Victim of Its Own Success?
-
Samuel Issacharoff, Essay, Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a Victim of Its Own Success?, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1710, 1728 (2004).
-
(2004)
Colum. L. Rev
, vol.104
, Issue.1710
, pp. 1728
-
-
Issacharoff, S.1
-
14
-
-
84888087105
-
Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary
-
[hereinafter Hearing] (statement of Samuel Issacharoff)
-
Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 13-14 (2006) [hereinafter Hearing] (statement of Samuel Issacharoff).
-
(2006)
109th Cong
, pp. 13-14
-
-
-
15
-
-
84888122782
-
-
note
-
Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982) (denying preclearance to a Georgia redis- tricting plan in spite of the fact that there was no clear retrogression, due to evidence of discrimi natory purpose).
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
39649083432
-
United States
-
Beer V. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976)
-
(1976)
U.S
, vol.425
, Issue.130
, pp. 141
-
-
Beer, V.1
-
17
-
-
84888111991
-
-
note
-
"[A] legislative reapportionment that enhances the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the elec toral franchise can hardly have the 'effect' of diluting or abridging the right to vote on account of race within the meaning of § 5.".
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
84888100061
-
-
note
-
Section 2 of the VRA affirmatively forbids laws that directly or indirectly deny or abridge the right to vote on the basis of race. Unlike section 4, which mandates preclearance of new vot ing laws by the DOJ, section 2 creates a private cause of action, under which citizens affected by a restrictive voting law even in districts not subject to section 5 preclearance may file suit. Con gress amended section 2 in 1982 to reach beyond the constitutional prohibition on purposeful dis crimination. Because amended section 2 focused on all electoral practices that resulted in a denial or abridgment of minority voters' right to elect candidates of choice to office, it became the basis for the attack on at-large and multimember electoral districts that overrewarded majority voting blocs.
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
0347213188
-
Polarized Voting and the Political Process: The Transformation of Voting Rights Jurisprudence
-
Samuel Issacharoff, Polarized Voting and the Political Process: The Transformation of Voting Rights Jurisprudence, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 1833, 1845-1850 (1992).
-
(1992)
Mich. L. Rev
, vol.90
, Issue.1833
, pp. 1845-1850
-
-
Issacharoff, S.1
-
20
-
-
84888088822
-
-
note
-
Issacharoff, Karlan & Pildes, supra note 4, at 841-46 (documenting the partisan realignment of Alabama in the 1990s).
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
79960683246
-
Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America
-
chronicling the critical role of the Act in stimulating the ideological purification and sorting of the major political parties
-
Richard H. Pildes, Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America, 99 Calif. L. Rev. 273, 290-297 (2011) (chronicling the critical role of the Act in stimulating the ideological purification and sorting of the major political parties).
-
(2011)
Calif. L. Rev
, vol.99
, Issue.273
, pp. 290-297
-
-
Pildes, R.H.1
-
22
-
-
84888097264
-
-
note
-
509 U.S. 630, 658 (1993) (striking down a North Carolina redistricting effort if the irregular shape of the proposed district could be shown to have no rational explanation except racially bi ased gerrymandering).
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
84888091404
-
-
Miller V. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 922 (1995)
-
(1995)
U.S
, vol.515
, Issue.900
, pp. 922
-
-
Johnson, M.V.1
-
24
-
-
84888115030
-
-
note
-
Following Shaw to strike down the majority-black Georgia Eleventh Congressional District on the grounds that the DOJ's "max black" strategy that encouraged the district's creation was not narrowly tailored to serve a compel ling government interest.
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
84888114509
-
-
This pattern continued into the 2000s
-
This pattern continued into the 2000s.
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
84888114733
-
What Did VRA Preclearance Actually Do?: The Gap Between Perception and Reality
-
Aug. 19, 4:39 AM
-
Rick Pildes & Dan Tokaji, What Did VRA Preclearance Actually Do?: The Gap Between Perception and Reality, Election L. Blog (Aug. 19, 2013, 4:39 AM), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54521
-
(2013)
Election L. Blog
-
-
Pildes, R.1
Tokaji, D.2
-
27
-
-
84888113913
-
-
note
-
Showing that thirty-nine of the seventy-six objections lodged under section 5 between 2000 and 2012 concerned redistricting issues and that only five of the seventy-six addressed voter registration or eligibility issues.
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
84888096483
-
-
Texas v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 481 (D.D.C. 1992)
-
Texas v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 481 (D.D.C. 1992).
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
84888102494
-
-
note
-
For a summary of the arguments presented to Congress during the 2006 reauthorization of section 5 of the VRA, see Hearing, supra note 13, at 8-10 (statement of Richard L. Hasen, Profes sor of Law, Loyola Law School).
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
84888083950
-
-
note
-
In her Shelby County dissent, Justice Ginsburg noted that the evidence marshaled in 2006 by proponents of the VRA, exceeding 15,000 pages, "presents countless 'examples of flagrant ra cial discrimination' since the last reauthorization; Congress also brought to light systematic evi dence that 'intentional racial discrimination in voting remains so serious and widespread in cov ered jurisdictions that section 5 preclearance is still needed.'" 133 S. Ct. at 2636 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). Judge Tatel of the D.C. Circuit also reviewed the evidence in favor of renewal, finding "numerous 'examples of modern instances' of racial discrimination in voting," in addition to other indirect evidence that such discrimination remained prolific. Shelby Cnty., 679 F.3d at 865 (quoting City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 530 (1997)). This evidence of ongoing discrimination included "hundreds of instances in which the Attorney General... objected to proposed voting changes," as well as the fact that "over 800 proposed voting changes" were withdrawn or modified between 1990 and 2005 in response to "more information requests" (MIRs). Id. at 866. Judge Tatel also observed sources in the legislative history showing that "the average number of objections [to proposed changes to voting laws] per year has not declined, suggesting that the level of discrimination has remained constant as the number of proposed voting changes, many likely quite minor, has increased." Id. at 867.
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
84888089688
-
-
129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009)
-
129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009).
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
84888125475
-
-
133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013)
-
133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013).
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
84888084984
-
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2618
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2618.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
67650553143
-
Federalism and the Generality Problem in Constitutional Interpreta tion
-
John F. Manning, Federalism and the Generality Problem in Constitutional Interpreta tion, 122 Harv L. Rev. 2003, 2007-2008 (2009)
-
(2003)
Harv L. Rev
, vol.122
, pp. 2007-2008
-
-
Manning, J.F.1
-
35
-
-
84888121776
-
-
note
-
Skeptically reviewing the emerging federalism norm for its lack of textual mooring); Nina Totenberg, Whose Term Was It? A Look Back at the Su preme Court, NPR (July 5, 2013, 3:35 AM), http://www.npr.org/2013/07/05/198708325/whose-term -was-it-a-look-back-at-the-supreme-court (quoting Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell as stating that "[t]here's no requirement in the Constitution to treat all states the same" (internal quo tation marks omitted)).
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
84888097826
-
-
note
-
129 S. Ct. 2504, 2513 (2009) (permitting a Texas district to seek bailout from the section 5 preclearance requirement, while noting that the VRA's "preclearance requirements and its cover age formula raise serious constitutional questions").
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
84888104095
-
-
note
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2630 ("[F]our years ago, in an opinion joined by two of to day's dissenters, the Court expressly stated that '[t]he Act's preclearance requirement and its cov erage formula raise serious constitutional questions.' The dissent does not explain how those 'se rious constitutional questions' became untenable in four short years." (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting NAM U D NO, 129 S. Ct. at 2513)).
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
84888126031
-
-
note
-
Adam Liptak, Steady Move to the Right, N.Y. Times, June 28, 2013, at A1 ("Chief Justice Roberts has proved adept at persuading the court's more liberal justices to join compromise opinions, allowing him to cite their concessions years later as the basis for closely divided and deeply polarizing conserva tive victories.") Note
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
79956133754
-
-
note
-
Barry Friedman, The Wages of Stealth Overruling (with Particular Attention to Miranda v. Arizona), 99 Geo. L.J. 1, 19 (2010) (identifying instances of dicta returning as the ba sis to alter earlier settled law).
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
84862627972
-
Reinventing Sovereignty?: Federalism as a Constraint on the Voting Rights Act
-
Franita Tolson, Reinventing Sovereignty?: Federalism as a Constraint on the Voting Rights Act, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1195, 1254 (2012).
-
(2012)
Vand. L. Rev
, vol.65
, Issue.1195
, pp. 1254
-
-
Tolson, F.1
-
41
-
-
84888080402
-
-
note
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2622 (quoting NAMUDNO, 129 S. Ct. at 2512) (internal quota tion marks omitted).
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
84888116407
-
-
note
-
521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997) ("There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.").
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
84888079661
-
-
note
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2625, 2627-31. Chief Justice Roberts compared the current deci sion with South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), which held that "the coverage for mula [was] rational in both practice and theory." Id. at 330. He found that "[h]ere, by contrast, the Government's reverse-engineering argument does not even attempt to demonstrate the con tinued relevance of the formula to the problem it targets. And in the context of a decision as sig nificant as this one... that failure to establish even relevance is fatal." Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2628.
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
84888116821
-
-
note
-
In particular, the attempt to sustain the continued use of section 4 based upon empirical claims of problems of vote dilution in covered jurisdictions "simply highlights the irrationality of continued reliance on the § 4 coverage formula." Id. at 2629. Had Congress "started from scratch" in designing a coverage formula, "[i]t would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between States in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today's statistics tell an entirely different story. And it would have been irrational to base coverage on the use of voting tests 40 years ago, when such tests have been illegal since that time." Id. at 2630-31. But see id. at 2651 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) ("Congress had more than a reasonable basis to conclude that the existing coverage formula was not out of sync with conditions on the ground in covered areas.").
-
-
-
-
45
-
-
84888088193
-
-
note
-
This form of rationality review with bite was also present this Term in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (striking down the Defense of Marriage Act).
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
84888092601
-
-
note
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2626 (noting DOJ objections to only 0.16% of submissions in the decade prior to the last reenactment).
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
84888120129
-
-
note
-
John G. Tamasitis, Survey of South Carolina Law - Election Law, "Things Have Changed in the South": How Preclearance of South Carolina's Voter Photo ID Law Demonstrates that Sec tion 5 of the Voting Rights Act Is No Longer a Constitutional Remedy, 64 S.C. L. Rev. 959, 963 (2013) ("In 2012 alone, fourteen states sought to enact voter ID requirements where none had ex isted before, and ten states sought to strengthen laws already in place.").
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
84897782995
-
Nathaniel Persily & Charles Stewart III, Regional Differences in Ra cial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Sec tion 5 of the Voting Rights Act
-
Stephen Ansolabehere, Nathaniel Persily & Charles Stewart III, Regional Differences in Ra cial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Sec tion 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 126 Harv. L. Rev. F. 205, 209 (2013).
-
(2013)
Harv. L. Rev. F
, vol.126
, Issue.205
, pp. 209
-
-
Ansolabehere, S.1
-
50
-
-
84888116915
-
-
note
-
Providing a comprehensive review of restrictive voting laws implemented in 2011 for the 2012 election, all by Republican- dominated legislatures except for a weak photo ID bill in Democratic-controlled Rhode Island.
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
84888092813
-
-
note
-
Ari Berman, The GOP War on Voting, Rolling Stone, Aug. 30, 2011, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830 (accusing the Republican party of seeking to suppress Democratic voters by passing restrictive voting laws); Michael Cooper, New State Rules Raising Hurdles at Voting Booth, N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, 2011, at A1 ("Republicans, who have passed almost all of the new election laws, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, and question why photo identification should be routinely required at airports but not at polling sites.").
-
-
-
-
52
-
-
84888093984
-
-
Weiser & Norden, supra note 46, at 9-10
-
Weiser & Norden, supra note 46, at 9-10.
-
-
-
-
53
-
-
84888087137
-
Everything You Need to Know About the Pennsylvania Voter ID Fight
-
Oct. 2
-
Aaron Blake, Everything You Need to Know About the Pennsylvania Voter ID Fight, Wash. Post (Oct. 2, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the -pennsylvania-voter-id-fight-explained
-
(2012)
Wash. Post
-
-
Blake, A.1
-
54
-
-
84888114797
-
-
note
-
Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai listed the party's state legislative accomplishments to include "[v]oter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
84888100922
-
-
note
-
Applewhite v. Commonwealth, No. 330 M.D. 2012, 2012 WL 4497211 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 2, 2012) (granting a preliminary injunction against the Pennsylvania voter ID law); President Map, N.Y. Times, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president (last updated Nov. 29, 2012) (interactive feature displaying 2012 election results, including President Obama's win in Pennsyl vania with 52% of the vote).
-
-
-
-
56
-
-
84888111452
-
-
note
-
Weiser & Norden, supra note 46, at 13 (showing that among nineteen states enact ing restrictive voter identification laws in 2011 and 2012, only three of those states - Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas - were subject to preclearance).
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
84888100071
-
-
note
-
Texas v. H o l d e r, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying preclearance to Texas voter ID law); Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying preclearance to a portion of a voting law that reduced the number of early-voting days and early-voting hours, but upholding voting restrictions for recent movers). Additionally, South Carolina obtained approval for its voter ID requirement. South Carolina v. United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012). Only Texas's voter ID law was completely thwarted by section 5. For a review of all litigation arising from 2012 voting restrictions, see cases cited infra note 143.
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
84888115424
-
-
531 U.S. 98 (2000) (per curiam)
-
531 U.S. 98 (2000) (per curiam).
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
84888126951
-
-
note
-
Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir. 2006), vacated as moot, 473 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 2007).
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
84888097049
-
-
note
-
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463, 476 (6th Cir. 2008).
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
84888098383
-
-
Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011)
-
Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011).
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
84888099378
-
-
Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added)
-
Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added)
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
84888122861
-
-
Hunter, 635 F.3d at 234; League of Women Vot ers, 548 F.3d at 477
-
Hunter, 635 F.3d at 234; League of Women Vot ers, 548 F.3d at 477
-
-
-
-
64
-
-
84888112076
-
-
Stewart, 444 F.3d at 859-60
-
Stewart, 444 F.3d at 859-60.
-
-
-
-
65
-
-
84888091495
-
-
635 F. 3d 219
-
635 F. 3d 219.
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
84888120990
-
-
note
-
Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012), stay denied, 133 S. Ct. 497 (2012). Disclosure: I served as one of the lawyers for Obama for America in this litigation.
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
84888085517
-
-
note
-
Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
84888107918
-
-
Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 428
-
Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 428.
-
-
-
-
69
-
-
84888094290
-
-
697 F. 3d 423
-
697 F. 3d 423.
-
-
-
-
70
-
-
84888125649
-
-
553 U.S. 181 (2008)
-
553 U.S. 181 (2008).
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
84888124596
-
-
note
-
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 530 (1997) ("While preventive rules are sometimes appropriate remedial measures, there must be a congruence between the means used and the ends to be achieved. The appropriateness of remedial measures must be considered in light of the evil presented." (citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966))).
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
84888091995
-
-
note
-
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 U.S. 288, 307-08 (1964) ("This Court has re peatedly held that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.... '[E]ven though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental per sonal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960))). But see Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 (1989) ("[W]e reaffirm today that a regulation of the time, place, or manner of pro tected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral in- terests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied 'so long as the... regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689 (1985))).
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
84888101523
-
-
521 U.S. at 530 (citing Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 308)
-
521 U.S. at 530 (citing Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 308).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
0347573307
-
Appropriate" Means-Ends Constraints on Section 5 Powers
-
Evan H. Caminker, "Appropriate" Means-Ends Constraints on Section 5 Powers, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127, 1131-1132 (2001)
-
(2001)
Stan. L. Rev
, vol.53
, Issue.1127
, pp. 1131-1132
-
-
Caminker, E.H.1
-
75
-
-
0347742775
-
-
note
-
Arguing that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted under the "rational relationship" test of McCulloch v. Maryland, not the "congru ence and proportionality" test of Boerne); Samuel Estreicher & Margaret H. Lemos, The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, and the Future of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, 2000 Sup. Ct. Rev. 109, 115 (arguing that United States v. Morrison transformed the congruence and proportionality test of Boerne "from a tool to divine whether Congress's objectives were constitutionally proper into a limitation on the means Congress permissibly may adopt to achieve otherwise valid legislative ends") Note
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
0039581491
-
Essay, Equal Protection by Law: Federal Antidiscrimina tion Legislation After Morrison and Kimel
-
Robert C. Post & Reva B. Siegel, Essay, Equal Protection by Law: Federal Antidiscrimina tion Legislation After Morrison and Kimel, 110 Yale L.J. 441, 457-458 (2000)
-
(2000)
Yale L.J
, vol.110
, pp. 457-458
-
-
Post, R.C.1
Siegel, R.B.2
-
77
-
-
84888113876
-
-
note
-
Claiming the Court's rigid interpretation of the congruence and proportionality standard of Boerne has been used to increase the power of the judiciary while stifling Congress's ability to legislate under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
84888088273
-
-
note
-
Boerne, 521 U.S. at 508 ("Although Congress certainly can en act legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, its § 5 power 'to enforce' is only preventive or 'remedial.'" (citation omitted) (quoting Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 326)).
-
-
-
-
79
-
-
84888089179
-
-
note
-
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("Were the Feder al Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern, areas hav ing nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusory.").
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
84888092382
-
-
note
-
In Coleman v. Court of Appeals, 132 S. Ct. 1327 (2012), the Court struck down a provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the states. Because of the lack of proof that the failure to provide sick leave to take care of oneself was the product of animus against women, "the Court held that self-care leave did not address gender discrimination and therefore did not qualify as a legitimate abrogation of sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Supreme Court, 2011 Term - Leading Cases, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 176, 317 (2012).
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
84888122720
-
-
note
-
This is the argument that underlay the Court's reasoning on the sweep of congressional power under the Elections Clause. See Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2257 (2013) (finding that the exercise of congressional power under the Elections Clause "necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States".
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
84888093378
-
-
note
-
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366-67 (1932) ("In exercising this power, the Congress may supple-ment these state regulations or may substitute its own. It may impose additional penalties for the violation of the state laws or provide independent sanctions. It 'has a general supervisory power over the whole subject.'" (quoting Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 387 (1879))).
-
-
-
-
83
-
-
84888113936
-
-
note
-
Exparte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 660-61 (1884) (stating broadly that Congress has implied authority to pass legislation supporting and enforcing enumerated constitutional rights, including rights under the Elections Clause). The discussion of Inter Tribal Council follows infra pp. 110-12.
-
-
-
-
84
-
-
84888110166
-
-
Siebold, 100 U.S. at 387
-
Siebold, 100 U.S. at 387.
-
-
-
-
85
-
-
84888095043
-
-
note
-
Smiley, 285 U.S. at 366-67; see also Ya r b r ou g h, 110 U.S. at 660-61; Tolson, supra note 33, at 1218 ("[T]he Elections Clause... has a decentralized organizational structure that appears to mimic federalism but in reality concentrates final policymaking authority in only one sovereign - Congress." Note
-
-
-
-
86
-
-
84888082693
-
-
note
-
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 72 (1996) ("Even when the Constitution vests in Congress complete lawmaking authority over a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting States."); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 83 (2000) (limiting Congress's power to abrogate state immunity via the Age Discrimination in Employment Act under the Fourteenth Amendment).
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
84888123278
-
-
note
-
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) ("It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment. This jurisdictional bar applies regard less of the nature of the relief sought." (citations omitted)).
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
84888098416
-
-
note
-
Daniel J. Meltzer, The Seminole Decision and State Sovereign Immunity, 1996 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1 (discussing the historical development of the Eleventh Amendment from the time of its inception).
-
-
-
-
89
-
-
84888095438
-
-
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2602 (2012)
-
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2602 (2012)
-
-
-
-
90
-
-
84888115588
-
-
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997)
-
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997)
-
-
-
-
91
-
-
84888116729
-
-
note
-
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992) ("Congress may not simply 'commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288 (1981))).
-
-
-
-
92
-
-
84888098493
-
-
42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10 (2006)
-
42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10 (2006).
-
-
-
-
93
-
-
84888112511
-
-
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2253 (2013)
-
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2253 (2013).
-
-
-
-
94
-
-
84888124368
-
-
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4
-
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4.
-
-
-
-
95
-
-
84888105246
-
-
note
-
Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that the NVRA preempted a Virginia law that prohibited disclosure of completed voter registration applications, in spite of the possibility that revelation of personal information required on the form might discourage voter registration in some instances).
-
-
-
-
96
-
-
84888119660
-
-
note
-
Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Re form Now v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that the NVRA does not violate the Tenth Amendment and is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Elections Clause).
-
-
-
-
97
-
-
84888118216
-
-
note
-
Voting Rights Coal. v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Clearly, the Constitu tion denies to the states any power to obstruct the exercise by Congress of its power to 'make or alter' the 'Times, Places and Manner' of electing 'Senators and Representatives,' nor does it im pose on the United States the burden, always heretofore borne by the states, of defraying the costs incurred by such alterations.").
-
-
-
-
98
-
-
84888098039
-
-
note
-
Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794 (7th Cir. 1995). Among counsel for the first-named party in this case was a newly minted lawyer by the name of Barack H. Obama, a former officer of this Law Review.
-
-
-
-
99
-
-
84888115346
-
-
note
-
In addition to Shelby County, the Court went even further to limit the scope of such reme dial power when it held the State of Texas to a more exacting compelling interest standard for state rather than congressional remedial action. See Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411, 2421-22 (2013).
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
84888100397
-
-
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7 (2006)
-
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7 (2006).
-
-
-
-
101
-
-
84888119230
-
-
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 275 (1997)
-
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 275 (1997).
-
-
-
-
102
-
-
84888125746
-
-
note
-
As summarized by the Court, "Section 1973gg-2(a)(2) of the Act requires a State to establish procedures for registering to vote in federal elections 'by mail application pursuant to section 1973gg-4 of this title.' Section 1973gg-4, in turn, requires States to 'accept and use' a standard federal registration form." Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2251 (2013).
-
-
-
-
103
-
-
84888117332
-
-
Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 347 (2001)
-
Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 347 (2001).
-
-
-
-
104
-
-
84888085288
-
-
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)
-
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
-
-
-
-
105
-
-
84888108113
-
-
note
-
The Court had not previously emphasized the difference in Congress's authority in these two settings. For instance, as the Court sets out, the decision upholding Congress's ability to mandate voter eligibility for eighteen-year-olds in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), rested on the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Elections Clause. Inter Tribal Council, 133 S. Ct. at 2258 n.8.
-
-
-
-
106
-
-
84888083539
-
-
note
-
Inter Tribal Council, 133 S. Ct. at 2260 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("There is no sound basis for the Court to rule, for the first time, that there exists a hierarchy of federal powers so that some statutes pre-empting state law must be interpreted by different rules than others, all depending upon which power Congress has exercised.").
-
-
-
-
107
-
-
84888115714
-
-
note
-
Some of the early commentary on Inter Tribal Council looked to the reaffirmation of the power of the states to regulate voting qualifications as some form of Trojan horse, bearing new assaults on congressional power over voting.
-
-
-
-
108
-
-
84888099072
-
Pyrrhic Victory for Federal Government in Arizona Voter Registration Case?
-
June 17, 3:02 PM
-
Marty Lederman, Pyrrhic Victory for Federal Government in Arizona Voter Registration Case?, SCOTUSblog (June 17, 2013, 3:02 PM), http:// w w w. s c o t u s b l o g. c o m/2 0 1 3/06/pyrrhic-victory-for-federal-government-in-arizona-voter-registration-case.
-
(2013)
SCOTUSblog
-
-
Lederman, M.1
-
109
-
-
84888096364
-
-
note
-
I am unpersuaded by this reading of the case in light of its forceful account of the Elections Clause. See supra notes 89-90 and accompanying text.
-
-
-
-
110
-
-
29144457144
-
Early Returns on Election Reform: Discretion, Disenfranchisement, and the Help America Vote Act
-
Daniel P. Tokaji, Early Returns on Election Reform: Discretion, Disenfranchisement, and the Help America Vote Act, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1206, 1227-1228 (2005).
-
(2005)
Geo. Wash. L. Rev
, vol.73
, Issue.1206
, pp. 1227-1228
-
-
Tokaji, D.P.1
-
111
-
-
84888111829
-
-
note
-
For a more detailed description of the controversies arising from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, see id. at 1220-40.
-
-
-
-
112
-
-
84888097214
-
-
note
-
Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012) (holding that a Texas photo ID requirement was likely to have a retrogressive effect on minority voter registration and therefore was not eligible for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act).
-
-
-
-
113
-
-
84888079582
-
-
note
-
South Carolina v. United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012) (upholding a South Carolina photo ID requirement, which had an exception for voters with any valid reason for not obtaining an ID, but denying preclearance for the 2012 elections due to insufficient time to implement the law).
-
-
-
-
114
-
-
84888088167
-
-
note
-
League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. 2012) (upholding language in a proposed constitutional amendment to require voters to show photo ID, although the amendment was subsequently de feated at the ballot.
-
-
-
-
115
-
-
84888123472
-
Voter ID Drive Rejected
-
Nov. 7, 3:02 PM
-
Jim Ragsdale, Voter ID Drive Rejected, Sta r Trib. (Nov. 7, 2012, 3:02 PM), http://www.startribune.com/177667691.html)
-
(2012)
Sta R Trib
-
-
Ragsdale, J.1
-
116
-
-
84888108338
-
-
note
-
Applewhite v. Commonwealth, No. 330 M.D. 2012, 2012 WL 4497211 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 2, 2012) (granting a preliminary injunction against a Pennsylvania voter ID law).
-
-
-
-
117
-
-
84888123859
-
-
note
-
Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012), stay denied, 133 S. Ct. 497 (2012).
-
-
-
-
118
-
-
84888096882
-
-
note
-
It is not my purpose here to engage the likelihood of such action under present conditions of partisan paralysis in Congress. My aim is simply to examine the constitutional plane after this Term's decisions and to fashion what an appropriate federal guarantee of the right to vote might look like.
-
-
-
-
119
-
-
84888089477
-
-
note
-
This is an application of the classic formulation of public choice theory in James M. Buchanan & Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent 3-9 (1962).
-
-
-
-
122
-
-
84888094699
-
-
note
-
Redistricting is the most notable area where the United States alone allows partisan actors to design the electoral rules that stand to benefit them or their political brethren.
-
-
-
-
123
-
-
84879213615
-
Our Electoral Exceptionalism
-
Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, Our Electoral Exceptionalism, 80 U. Chi. L. Rev. 769 (2013).
-
(2013)
U. Chi. L. Rev
, vol.80
, pp. 769
-
-
Stephanopoulos, N.O.1
-
124
-
-
84888113754
-
-
note
-
For a general ac count of the problems created in election administration by partisan control of election admin istration.
-
-
-
-
125
-
-
84860629420
-
Getting from Here to There in Redistricting Reform
-
Heather K. Gerken, Getting from Here to There in Redistricting Reform, 5 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y 1 (2010).
-
(2010)
Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y
, vol.5
, pp. 1
-
-
Gerken, H.K.1
-
126
-
-
84873914593
-
The Future of Election Reform: From Rules to Institutions
-
Daniel P. Tokaji, The Future of Election Reform: From Rules to Institutions, 28 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 125, 127 (2009)
-
(2009)
Pol'y Rev
, vol.28
, Issue.125
, pp. 127
-
-
Tokaji Daniel, P.1
-
127
-
-
84888087968
-
-
note
-
Observing that "decentralization and partisanship remain the two dominant characteristics of American election administration" (emphasis omitted).
-
-
-
-
128
-
-
84888117604
-
Policy Essay, Administering Election Law
-
Saul Zipkin, Policy Essay, Administering Election Law, 95 Marq. L. Rev. 641, 650 (2012)
-
(2012)
Marq. L. Rev
, vol.95
, Issue.641
, pp. 650
-
-
Zipkin, S.1
-
129
-
-
84888115397
-
-
note
-
Reviewing literature chronicling the consequences of partisan control of election processes.
-
-
-
-
130
-
-
84888081125
-
Behind the Bias Claims
-
Nov. 14, 5:36 PM
-
Behind the Bias Claims, BBC News (Nov. 14, 2000, 5:36 PM), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2 /hi/americas/1023507.stm.
-
(2000)
BBC News
-
-
-
131
-
-
84888079265
-
-
To k a j i, supra note 102, at 143-46
-
To k a j i, supra note 102, at 143-46.
-
-
-
-
132
-
-
84926084291
-
-
note
-
For further elaboration on these typologies, see generally Samuel Issacharoff, Legal Respons es to Conflicts of Interest, in Conflicts of Interest 189 (Don A. Moore et al. eds., 2005).
-
-
-
-
133
-
-
84888086449
-
-
note
-
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 4, 79 Stat. 437, 438-39 (codified as amend ed at 42 U.S.C. § 1973b (2006 & Supp. V 2011)); see also Issacharoff, supra note 12, at 1710-12.
-
-
-
-
134
-
-
84888090913
-
-
425 U.S. 130 (1976)
-
425 U.S. 130 (1976).
-
-
-
-
135
-
-
84888111449
-
-
note
-
In Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), the Court's interpretation of Beer veered away from a strict test of "retrogression" into a broader totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. For more on Ashcroft, and its relation to Beer.
-
-
-
-
136
-
-
8744275532
-
The Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated": Administering Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act After Georgia v. Ashcroft
-
Meghann E. Donahue, "The Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated": Administering Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act After Georgia v. Ashcroft, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1651, 1685 (2004)
-
(2004)
Colum. L. Rev
, vol.104
, Issue.1651
, pp. 1685
-
-
Donahue, M.E.1
-
137
-
-
84888110073
-
-
note
-
Arguing that exist ing decisions provide a workable framework under which Ashcroft could be implemented by sec tion 5 administrators in the future.
-
-
-
-
138
-
-
77952337544
-
Ashcroft and the Retrogression of Retrogression
-
Pamela S. Karlan, Georgia V. Ashcroft and the Retrogression of Retrogression, 3 Election L.J. 21, 35-36 (2004)
-
(2004)
Election L.J
, vol.3
, Issue.21
, pp. 35-36
-
-
Karlan, P.S.1
Georgia, V.2
-
139
-
-
84888122311
-
-
note
-
Arguing that in Ashcroft "the Court trans formed section 5 into a victim of its own success," id. at 36 by interpreting the retrogression standard of Beer to require nothing more than "good faith" from legislators, rather than substan tial analysis of the effect that proposed changes to legislation would have on minorities' ability to elect the candidates of their choice.
-
-
-
-
140
-
-
84888116647
-
Ashcroft: It's the End of Sec tion 5 as We Know It (and I Feel Fine)
-
Michael J. Pitts, Georgia V. Ashcroft: It's the End of Sec tion 5 as We Know It (and I Feel Fine), 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 265, 284-90 (2005)
-
(2005)
Pepp. L. Rev
, vol.32
, Issue.265
, pp. 284-290
-
-
Pitts, M.J.1
Georgia, V.2
-
141
-
-
84888103261
-
-
note
-
Arguing that Ashcroft harmonizes the Court's interpretation of section 5 of the VRA with the limits on congres sional enforcement power enumerated since Boerne, making it more likely that section 5 will withstand future constitutional review.
-
-
-
-
142
-
-
36749103164
-
The Promises and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act
-
Nathaniel Persily, The Promises and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act, 117 Yale L.J. 174, 234-45 (2007)
-
(2007)
Yale L.J
, vol.117
, Issue.174
, pp. 234-245
-
-
Persily, N.1
-
143
-
-
84888109746
-
-
note
-
Describing and analyzing the amended version of section 5 passed by Congress in 2006, which was intended to return to the Beer standard of retrogression, but left substantial questions unanswered). For a broader discussion of Beer and cases following it, see generally Issacharoff, Karlan & Pildes, supra note 4, at 546-57.
-
-
-
-
144
-
-
84888119018
-
Charles & Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Mapping a Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy
-
Guy-Uriel E. Charles & Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Mapping a Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, 123 Yale L.J. Online 131, 132 (2013).
-
(2013)
Yale L.J. Online
, vol.123
, Issue.131
, pp. 132
-
-
Guy-Uriel, E.1
-
145
-
-
84888100268
-
-
note
-
There were seventy-three such objections in the period between January of 2000 and De cember of 2012 and none in the first half of 2013, or a mean of 5.4 per year (ranging from a high of twenty objections in 2002 to a low of one in 2005).
-
-
-
-
146
-
-
84888114296
-
-
note
-
Voting Rights Act: Objections and Ob servers, Law. Committee for C.R. Under L., http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects /section_5 (last visited Sept. 29, 2013).
-
-
-
-
147
-
-
84888107259
-
-
note
-
To be fair, one can never gauge from conduct under legal constraint what the conduct would be absent such constraints. Fear of being ticketed does keep speeders in check (imperfectly) and relatively orderly traffic patterns do not counsel abandoning police enforcement. At the time of the 2006 extension of the VRA, proponents of the Act ferreted out the statistics about requests for additional information from the DOJ.
-
-
-
-
148
-
-
47049109437
-
The Congressional Record Underlying the 2006 Voting Rights Act: How Much Discrimination Can the Constitution Tolerate?
-
Kristen Clarke, The Congressional Record Underlying the 2006 Voting Rights Act: How Much Discrimination Can the Constitution Tolerate?, 43 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 385, 419 (2008).
-
(2008)
Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev
, vol.43
, Issue.385
, pp. 419
-
-
Clarke, K.1
-
149
-
-
84888097141
-
-
note
-
Persily, supra note 110, at 200. Presumably, this attendant vigilance is a stand-in both for the ongoing deterrent ef fect of section 5 and for the eagerness to misbehave on behalf of the covered jurisdictions. Fur ther, the existence of section 5, and the possible threat of a DOJ objection, do give minority groups additional leverage in negotiations, which may in turn depress intended or unintended maltreatment of minority voters.
-
-
-
-
150
-
-
84927071817
-
-
Guy-Uriel E. Charles et al. eds
-
Pamela S. Karlan, The Reconstruction of Voting Rights, in Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process 34, 43-44 (Guy-Uriel E. Charles et al. eds., 2011)
-
(2011)
The Reconstruction of Voting Rights, In Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process
, vol.34
, pp. 43-44
-
-
Karlan, P.S.1
-
151
-
-
84888079427
-
Section 5 as Simulacram
-
Justin Levitt, Section 5 as Simulacram, 123 Yale L.J. Online 151,-164 & n.47 (2013)
-
(2013)
Yale L.J. Online
, vol.123
, Issue.47
, pp. 151-164
-
-
Levitt, J.1
-
152
-
-
84888121027
-
-
note
-
Observing that a vast majority of objections lodged by the DOJ under section 5 concerned changes at the county, municipal, school board, or special district level, protecting smaller jurisdictions with fewer resources for large-scale responsive litigation.
-
-
-
-
153
-
-
84888102601
-
-
note
-
A partial exception may be found in the domain of sexual harassment law and some areas of employment discrimination cases under Title VII. Here an ex post assessment of the employ er's internal policies and procedures can utilize liability rules to cabin improper conduct. See Cynthia Estlund, Regoverning the Workplace 83-88 (2010).
-
-
-
-
154
-
-
84888090488
-
-
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966)
-
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966).
-
-
-
-
155
-
-
84888096442
-
-
Charles & Fuentes-Rohwer, supra note 111, at 132
-
Charles & Fuentes-Rohwer, supra note 111, at 132.
-
-
-
-
156
-
-
84888083195
-
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2624-27
-
Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2624-27.
-
-
-
-
157
-
-
0036927160
-
Gerrymandering and Political Cartels
-
Samuel Issacharoff, Gerrymandering and Political Cartels, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 630-31 (2002).
-
(2002)
Harv. L. Rev
, vol.116
, Issue.593
, pp. 630-631
-
-
Issacharoff, S.1
-
158
-
-
84888089908
-
-
note
-
The "Venice Commission," as it is known, oversees European interests in rooting democracy in Eastern Europe. European Comm'n for Democracy Through Law, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report (2002), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD%282002%29023rev.aspx.
-
-
-
-
159
-
-
84888103881
-
-
note
-
Issacharoff, Karlan & Pildes, supra note 4, at 120 ("[T]he United States has more elections for more levels of government with more elective offices at each level than any other country in the world.").
-
-
-
-
160
-
-
33749863777
-
The Supreme Court, 2003 Term - Foreword: The Constitutionaliza- tion of Democratic Politics
-
Richard H. Pildes, The Supreme Court, 2003 Term - Foreword: The Constitutionaliza- tion of Democratic Politics, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 28, 78-80 (2004)
-
(2004)
Harv. L. Rev
, vol.118
, Issue.28
, pp. 78-80
-
-
Pildes, R.H.1
-
161
-
-
84888121688
-
-
note
-
Observing this phenomenon in the context of the reluctance to adopt redistricting commissions as has every other democracy with territorial electoral districts.
-
-
-
-
162
-
-
84888099257
-
-
note
-
There has never been a serious proposal for extending the coverage of section 5 nationwide, largely as a result of the administrative burden and the likely inability of the DOJ to handle such a burden.
-
-
-
-
163
-
-
33646544742
-
Essay, A Third Way for the Voting Rights Act: Section 5 and the Opt-In Approach
-
Heather K. Gerken, Essay, A Third Way for the Voting Rights Act: Section 5 and the Opt-In Approach, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 708 (2006)
-
(2006)
Colum. L. Rev
, vol.106
, pp. 708
-
-
Gerken, H.K.1
-
164
-
-
84888090846
-
-
note
-
Although the proposed "opt-in" feature of coverage would significantly alter the scope of the Act. Extending section 5 nationwide would resolve the Court's concern in Shelby County about the stigmatic differential treatment of some states, but it would not resolve the rationality of the means-ends fit.
-
-
-
-
165
-
-
76849097957
-
Regulating After the Fact
-
Samuel Issacharoff, Regulating After the Fact, 56 DePaul L. Rev. 375, 378-380 (2007).
-
(2007)
DePaul L. Rev
, vol.56
, Issue.375
, pp. 378-380
-
-
Issacharoff, S.1
-
166
-
-
21144468370
-
Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis
-
Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 Duke L.J. 557 (1992)
-
(1992)
Duke L.J
, vol.42
, pp. 557
-
-
Kaplow, L.1
-
167
-
-
33846647656
-
The Supreme Court, 1991 Term - Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards
-
Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Supreme Court, 1991 Term - Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 22 (1992).
-
(1992)
Harv. L. Rev
, vol.106
, pp. 22
-
-
Sullivan, K.M.1
-
168
-
-
84888108459
-
-
note
-
Examples of cases in which state conduct that was previously precleared was subsequently struck down under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act include: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (holding a Texas congressional redistricting plan violated section 2 of the VRA by moving many Latino voters to one "opportunity district," diluting the number of Latinos remaining, even though it maintained the same number of opportunity dis tricts statewide).
-
-
-
-
169
-
-
84888093490
-
-
note
-
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (holding that the use of multimember districts for legislative apportionment in North Carolina violated the Voting Rights Act).
-
-
-
-
170
-
-
84888083384
-
-
note
-
Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 461 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2006) (striking down a South Dakota redistricting plan on the grounds that it discriminated against Indian voters in two districts covered by section 5).
-
-
-
-
171
-
-
84888113209
-
-
note
-
Clark v. Calhoun County, 88 F.3d 1393 (5th Cir. 1996) (striking down a Mississippi redistricting plan); and Major v. Treen, 574 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. La. 1983) (striking down a Louisiana redistrict- ing law).
-
-
-
-
172
-
-
0001418084
-
Liability for Harm Versus Regulation of Safety
-
Steven Shavell, Liability for Harm Versus Regulation of Safety, 13 J. Legal Stud. 357, 359 (1984).
-
(1984)
J. Legal Stud
, vol.13
, Issue.357
, pp. 359
-
-
Shavell, S.1
-
173
-
-
0001609162
-
Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral
-
Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089 (1972).
-
(1972)
Harv. L. Rev
, vol.85
, pp. 1089
-
-
Calabresi, G.1
Douglas Melamed, A.2
-
174
-
-
0346581482
-
Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis
-
Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 713, 719 (1996).
-
(1996)
Harv. L. Rev
, vol.109
, Issue.713
, pp. 719
-
-
Kaplow, L.1
Shavell, S.2
-
175
-
-
0000274841
-
Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regula tion: Substitutes or Complements?
-
Charles D. Kolstad et al., Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regula tion: Substitutes or Complements?, 80 Am. Econ. Rev. 888, 888 (1990)
-
(1990)
Am. Econ. Rev
, vol.80
, Issue.888
, pp. 888
-
-
Kolstad, C.D.1
-
176
-
-
84888124382
-
-
note
-
"One of the most notice able features of current policy dealing with externality-generating activities in a wide number of areas is that ex ante and ex post policies are very frequently used jointly." Note
-
-
-
-
177
-
-
33745735998
-
Incomplete Law
-
arguing that regu lators and ex post court assessments both respond to the problem of gaps in laws that are neces sarily "incomplete" as promulgated
-
Katharina Pistor & Chenggang Xu, Incomplete Law, 35 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 931, 932 (2003) (arguing that regu lators and ex post court assessments both respond to the problem of gaps in laws that are neces sarily "incomplete" as promulgated).
-
(2003)
N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol
, vol.35
, Issue.931
, pp. 932
-
-
Pistor, K.1
Chenggang, X.2
-
179
-
-
84888121591
-
-
note
-
For effective use of disclosure to redirect consumer conduct, see generally Oren Bar-Gill, Seduction by Contract (2012).
-
-
-
-
182
-
-
84888111395
-
-
note
-
I presented a rudimentary precursor to this proposal to Congress at the time of the reau- thorization of section 5 in 2006.
-
-
-
-
183
-
-
84888115269
-
Testimony of Professor Samuel Issacharoff, NYU School of Law, on the Reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
-
Testimony of Professor Samuel Issacharoff, NYU School of Law, on the Reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 5 Election L.J. 326 (2006)
-
(2006)
Election L.J
, vol.5
, pp. 326
-
-
-
184
-
-
71949094840
-
The Future of Voting Rights Policy: From Anti-Discrimination to the Right to Vote
-
744, arguing, on the eve of the 2006 VRA renewal, for the need for non-civil rights-modeled protections of the franchise
-
Richard H. Pildes, The Future of Voting Rights Policy: From Anti-Discrimination to the Right to Vote, 49 How. L.J. 741, 744, 756 (2006) (arguing, on the eve of the 2006 VRA renewal, for the need for non-civil rights-modeled protections of the franchise
-
(2006)
How. L.J
, vol.49
, Issue.741
, pp. 756
-
-
Pildes, R.H.1
-
185
-
-
84888083345
-
-
note
-
The powers of the Election Assistance Commission under the NVRA was the narrow ques tion at issue in Inter Tribal Council where the Court noted that the EAC is completely dysfunc tional and there is not a single active commissioner at present. 133 S. Ct. at 2260 n.10.
-
-
-
-
186
-
-
84888107158
-
-
note
-
42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (2006).
-
-
-
-
187
-
-
84888120747
-
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
-
Dodd-Frank, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5361(a)(1) (2012).
-
(2012)
U.S.C
, vol.12
, Issue.1
, pp. 5361
-
-
Dodd-Frank1
-
188
-
-
84888104956
-
-
note
-
Even before the current Term, the Court has used a stricter rational relations review to hold statutes unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 579-80 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) ("Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster.... When a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."); see also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634-35 (1996) (striking down on equal protection grounds an amendment to the Constitution of Colorado that "pro-hibit[ed] all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect... gays and lesbians," id. at 624); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 447-50 (1985) (holding that a municipal zoning ordinance requiring special use permits for homes for the intellectually disabled violated the Equal Protection Clause); U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 538 (1973) (declaring a federal statutory provision that barred persons living in households containing one or more unrelated members from participating in the federal food stamp program to be invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment).
-
-
-
-
189
-
-
84888106327
-
-
note
-
There is a private right of action to compel submission of plans to the DOJ but not to chal lenge the outcome of administrative preclearance under section 5. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elec tions, 393 U.S. 544, 555 (1969) ("[A]ppellants may seek a declaratory judgment that a new state enactment is governed by § 5. Further, after proving that the State has failed to submit the cov ered enactment for § 5 approval, the private party has standing to obtain an injunction against further enforcement, pending the State's submission of the legislation pursuant to § 5.").
-
-
-
-
190
-
-
84888081967
-
-
note
-
Chief Justice Roberts makes this point expressly. Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2619.
-
-
-
-
191
-
-
84888089072
-
-
note
-
Section 1983 provides a private right of action to any party who is deprived of constitution al or other civil rights by any person acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, cus tom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
-
-
-
-
192
-
-
84888105775
-
-
note
-
Private enforcement is estimated to result in approximately twenty percent more recoveries for securities fraud than those obtained by the SEC or DOJ directly.
-
-
-
-
193
-
-
62649154993
-
Var-iation in the Intensity of Financial Regulation: Preliminary Evidence and Potential Implications
-
Howell E. Jackson, Var-iation in the Intensity of Financial Regulation: Preliminary Evidence and Potential Implications, 24 Yale J. on Reg. 253, 280 (2007).
-
(2007)
Yale J. On Reg
, vol.24
, Issue.253
, pp. 280
-
-
Jackson, H.E.1
-
194
-
-
84888087267
-
-
note
-
The Supreme Court has rejected any effort to build into 42 U.S.C. § 1988 any enhancements or multipliers based on contingency risk, see City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 561-63, 567 (1992), or extraordinary public-serving results in litigation brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or equivalent civil rights statutes, see Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1674 (2010).
-
-
-
-
195
-
-
84888110651
-
-
note
-
For example, nonstate actors have come to play a central role in redistricting litigation.
-
-
-
-
196
-
-
84878030366
-
Redistricting Litigation and the Delegation of Democratic De sign
-
Lisa Marshall Manheim, Redistricting Litigation and the Delegation of Democratic De sign, 93 B.U. L. Rev. 563 (2013).
-
(2013)
B.U. L. Rev
, vol.93
, pp. 563
-
-
Manheim Lisa, M.1
-
197
-
-
84888080471
-
-
note
-
Even though financial incentives are more remote than in litiga tion over economic harms, such as securities litigation.
-
-
-
-
198
-
-
84888087092
-
-
note
-
South Carolina v. United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 30, 32 (D.D.C. 2012) (upholding South Carolina photo ID requirement, which had an exception for voters with a valid reason for not obtaining an ID, for future elections (but not the 2012 election, since there was insufficient time to implement the law)); Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113, 143-44 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying pre- clearance to Texas photo ID requirement, since it was likely to have a retrogressive effect on mi nority voter registration); Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299, 303, 357 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying preclearance to Florida law reducing the number of early voting days and hours, while upholding new provision preventing voters who have recently moved between counties from changing their legal address at polling places and restricting such voters to casting a provi sional ballot subject to review by county election officials); League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157-58 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (granting preliminary injunction against Florida's enforcement of several restrictions on voter-registration drives, including dead lines, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for organizations conducting such drives); Applewhite v. Commonwealth, No. 330 M.D. 2012, 2012 WL 4497211, at *8 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 2, 2012) (granting a preliminary injunction against a Pennsylvania voter ID law); League of Women Voters of Wis. Educ. Network, Inc. v. Walker, No. 11 CV 4669, 2012 WL 763586 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Mar. 12, 2012) (issuing a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Wisconsin voter photo ID law); Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker, No. 11 CV 5492, 2012 WL 739553 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Mar. 6, 2012) (granting temporary injunction barring enforcement of Wisconsin vot er photo ID law). But see Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade, 488 F. App'x 890, 904 (5th Cir. 2012) (granting emergency motion to stay the district court's injunction against enforcement of Texas laws regulating third-party voter registration); League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 651 (Minn. 2012) (denying petition seeking to strike from 2012 election ballot a pro posed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show photo ID). For a review of restrictive voting laws passed and challenged in 2012.
-
-
-
-
199
-
-
84888124705
-
-
note
-
Weiser & Norden, supra note 46, at 9-10, detailing and analyzing voting legislation passed in 2012. For a detailed study of South Carolina's (ultimately successful) struggle to preclear its voter photo ID act, see Tamasitis, supra note 44. John Tamasitis juxtaposes the South Carolina act with other voter ID restrictions passed in the 2012 election cycle to argue that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer a congruent exercise of congressional power under the Fifteenth Amendment.
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
84888093808
-
-
note
-
His survey of 2012 voter ID laws is also relevant here. Tamasitis observes that of the seventeen states that had enacted legislation as of 2012 requiring a form of photo ID to be presented at the polls, South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were unable to implement their laws before the 2012 election. Of those states, South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Ala bama are covered under the VRA and therefore required to receive preclearance.
-
-
-
-
201
-
-
84888104113
-
-
note
-
In an important new paper, Charles and Fuentes-Rohwer point to the maturation of what they term "third-party groups" (TPGs) as a major development in the world of voting rights pro tection. These TPGs were exceedingly limited in 1965 and could not possibly contest the resil ience of voting discrimination. See Charles & Fuentes-Rohwer, supra note 111, at 133, 142-48. As succinctly stated by Jack Greenberg, the successor to Thurgood Marshall as Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund: "For most of this century, the NAACP was the only civil rights organization that made a difference." Note
-
-
-
-
203
-
-
84888098561
-
-
note
-
By contrast, Charles and Fuentes-Rohwer point in particular to the success of TPGs in Arizona in defeating efforts to restrict the franchise. Charles & Fuentes-Rohwer, supra note 111, at 144-45.
-
-
-
-
204
-
-
84888121704
-
-
note
-
Public litigation does not correspond to all the customary incentive structures operating on private actors. Partisan officials may well take short-term measures to stay in office, even at the risk of later sanctions, which would be borne by the successors in office anyway. At the same time, public officials tend to aspire to higher office and may not wish to be personally associated with unlawful conduct. Both former Governor Bob Taft and current Senator Sherrod Brown were first elected to Ohio statewide office as Secretary of State.
-
-
-
-
205
-
-
84888079868
-
-
note
-
Transcript of Oral Argument at 47, Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (No. 12-96).
-
-
-
-
206
-
-
84888119257
-
-
note
-
This is particularly the case if gains are concentrated in an active minority and losses are diffuse and of little immediate consequence to the majority.
-
-
-
-
208
-
-
84888100344
-
-
note
-
Writing for the three-judge court below, Judge Tatel gave a powerful summary of the evi dence that had been marshaled by advocates in the case and various amici and academics. Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 865-72 (D.C. Cir. 2012). All to little avail. Subsequently, an inter esting study of Google search terms presented a worrisome and at times menacing picture of a per sistent regional prevalence for out-and-out racism, which is not easily ignored. Seth Stephens- Davidowitz, The Cost of Racial Animus on a Black Presidential Candidate: Using Google Search Data to Find What Surveys Miss 2-3 (Mar. 24, 2013) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://www.people.fas.harvard. edu/~sstephen/papers/R acial Ani mus A n d Vot ing Seth S t e p h e n s D a v i d o w i t z.pdf.
-
-
-
-
209
-
-
85116177995
-
The Geography of Racial Stereotyping
-
forthcoming, manuscript, suggesting methodological tests for ascertaining the extent of discrimination by nonminority voters
-
Christopher S. Elmendorf & Douglas M. Spencer, The Geography of Racial Stereotyp ing, 102 Calif. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014) (manuscript at 16-37), available at http://ssrn.com /abstract=2262954 (suggesting methodological tests for ascertaining the extent of discrimination by nonminority voters).
-
(2014)
Calif. L. Rev
, vol.102
, pp. 16-37
-
-
Elmendorf, C.S.1
Spencer, D.M.2
-
210
-
-
84888119370
-
-
note
-
An amicus brief filed on behalf of a number of constitutional law professors correctly anticipated the likely outcome in Shelby County and Inter Tribal Council and advocated using the Elections Clause to limit a facial challenge to section 5. Brief of Gabriel Chin et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 13, Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (No. 12-96) ("This Court has long acknowledged the importance of Congress' Elections Clause power, and consequently provided Congress broad leeway to exercise it. It is up to Congress, finally, to determine when state laws concerning federal elections should be modified.").
-
-
-
|