Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil rights (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Suffrage (2)
- Actual Innocence (1)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze (Supreme Court case) (1)
-
- Burdick v. Takushi; 112 S. Ct. 2059 (1992) (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal Convictions (1)
- Election law (1)
- Equal rights (1)
- Establishment clause (Constitutional law) (1)
- Executive Power (1)
- Exoneration (1)
- Government Agencies (1)
- Habeas Corpus (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Lawyers' fees (1)
- Legal Rights (1)
- Presidents (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Separation of Powers (1)
- State laws (1)
- Supreme Court justices (U.S.) (1)
- United States. Constitution (1)
- Voting (1)
- Voting laws (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Ballots In An Unfamiliar Language And Other Things That Make No Sense: Interpreting How The Voting Rights Act Undermines Constitutional Rights For Voters With Limited English Proficiency, Abigail Hylton
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Note will argue that the current federal scheme for determining the baseline resources that a state must provide to voters with limited English proficiency is unconstitutional. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act neglects to require adequate translation and interpretation services for many voters with limited English proficiency. Such failure to adequately support this group of citizens throughout the election process effectively excludes them from the democratic process and deprives them of their constitutional right to vote. Whether this group of voters has access to translated materials currently hinges on the language they speak, their nationality, and their geographic location; the …
Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas
Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on so much of our lives, including how to run our elections. Yet the federal courts have refused to respond appropriately to the dilemma that many voters faced when trying to participate in the 2020 election. Instead, the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts—invoked a narrow test that unduly defers to state election administration and fails to protect adequately the fundamental right to vote.
In constitutional litigation, a law usually must satisfy a two-part test: (1) does the state have an appropriate reason for the law and (2) is the law properly …
Petitions From The Grave: Why Federal Executions Are A Violation Of The Suspension Clause, Taran Wessells
Petitions From The Grave: Why Federal Executions Are A Violation Of The Suspension Clause, Taran Wessells
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Note will address the intersection of wrongful convictions, the federal death penalty, and habeas corpus to conclude that the federal death penalty is an unconstitutional violation of the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution. Part I of this Note will establish that Congress may not suspend the writ of habeas corpus outside of wartime. Then, Part II will show that wrongfully convicted prisoners therefore have a constitutional right to a habeas petition if they discover new, exonerating evidence. Part III will argue that because executed prisoners cannot file a habeas petition for release, executing wrongfully convicted prisoners is …
The President And Individual Rights, Mark Tushnet
The President And Individual Rights, Mark Tushnet
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen
From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
For fourteen years, members of Congress repeatedly introduced legislation directed at a single subject. A key underpinning for the necessity of the legislation was provided by the opinions of two Supreme Court justices. Yet, for the past nine years, Congress has gone silent on the same topic. This Article argues that it is past time for Congress to reconsider this topic, and that if it will not do so, the Supreme Court can rectify the situation without engaging in judicial legislation.
Perhaps the best view of Congress's efforts can be seen by examining the high-water mark of those efforts, which …