Digital Commons Network^™

Allen V. Milligan: Anticlassification And The Voting Rights Act, Graham Stinnett

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The "crown jewel" of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been called "one of the most effective statutes ever enacted." However, in 2013 the Supreme Court famously gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Nearly a decade later, in Allen v. Milligan, the Court is now signaling that Section 2, the last remaining core provision of the Voting Rights Act, could be on the chopping block. With Milligan, the Court may be preparing to inject race-neutrality into Section 2, which could destroy the vestiges of the onetime "super-statute."

This …

Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court should …

Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the formation of the districts and that strict scrutiny would be triggered, instead remanding to the lower court for reexamination. This commentary argues that the Court missed an opportunity to hold that a 55% BVAP floor prioritized above all else is per se racial predomination, and such a …

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel V. Abbott And The Apportionment Population Debate, Joey Herman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain situations. The case of Evenwel v. Abbott, provides the Court with the opportunity to resolve the permissible population basis for reapportionment of state legislative districts. This Commentary argues that a state may rely upon total population as the basis for apportionment because such an approach is consistent …

Of All The Gin Joints: Harris And The Supreme Court’S Reluctant Jurisprudence On Partisanship In Redistricting, Andrew Bellis

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court faces the question of whether partisan makeup of the population and whether an attempt by a state to obtain federal preclearance for redistricting are valid factors a state can take into account …