Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
Ranked-Choice Voting As Reprieve From The Court-Ordered Map, Benjamin P. Lempert
Ranked-Choice Voting As Reprieve From The Court-Ordered Map, Benjamin P. Lempert
Michigan Law Review
Thus far, legal debates about the rise of ranked-choice voting have centered on whether legislatures can lawfully adopt the practice. This Note turns attention to the courts and the question of remedies. It proposes that courts impose ranked-choice voting as a redistricting remedy. Ranked-choice voting allows courts to cure redistricting violations without also requiring that they draw copious numbers of districts, a process the Supreme Court has described as a “political thicket.” By keeping courts away from the fact-specific, often arbitrary judgments involved in redistricting, ranked-choice voting makes for the redistricting remedy that best protects the integrity of the judicial …
Awarding Presidential Electors By Congressional District: Wrong For California, Wrong For The Nation, Sam Hirsch
Awarding Presidential Electors By Congressional District: Wrong For California, Wrong For The Nation, Sam Hirsch
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The unfairness of the proposed California Presidential Election Reform Act is obvious: in a close election, the Act virtually assures that California’s fifty-five electoral votes, which would be expected to go entirely to the Democratic presidential candidate under the traditional statewide-winner-takeall system, will instead be split, with more than a third of them going to the Republican candidate. Implementing this “reform” in the nation’s largest Democratic state, but not in any of the large Republican states (like Texas), is roughly the equivalent of handing over to the Republicans the state of Illinois. What is less obvious is that the Act …
"Now For A Clean Sweep!": Smiley V. Holm, Partisan Gerrymandering, And At-Large Congressional Elections, Benedict J. Schweigert
"Now For A Clean Sweep!": Smiley V. Holm, Partisan Gerrymandering, And At-Large Congressional Elections, Benedict J. Schweigert
Michigan Law Review
The 1930 Census reduced Minnesota's apportionment in the U.S. House of Representatives from ten to nine, requiring the state to draw new congressional districts. The Republican-led state legislature passed a gerrymandered redistricting bill in an attempt to insulate its nine incumbents in the state's delegation from the party's expected loss of the statewide popular vote to the insurgent Farmer-Labor Party. When the Farmer-Labor Governor, Floyd B. Olson, vetoed the redistricting bill, the legislature claimed the bill could take effect without the governor's signature. In Smiley v. Holm, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the veto was effective and that …
Ratification Of Reapportionment Plans Drawn By Redistricting Commissions, Poonam Kumar
Ratification Of Reapportionment Plans Drawn By Redistricting Commissions, Poonam Kumar
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Partisan gerrymandering is a danger that threatens the foundations of the American democratic structure. This Note argues that partisan gerrymandering must be eliminated in order to foster political competition and ensure government accountability. Without a judicial solution, redistricting commissions present a viable option to help cure the ills of partisan gerrymandering. This Note argues that automatic and mandatory state supreme court judicial review must be the process by which the redistricting plans drawn by these commissions are ratified. Automatic judicial review permits redistricting to remain a legislative task while giving the judiciary a quintessential judicial task. In addition, this Note …
This Way To The Egress And Other Reflections On Partisan Gerrymandering Claims In Light Of Lulac V. Perry, Bernard Grofman
This Way To The Egress And Other Reflections On Partisan Gerrymandering Claims In Light Of Lulac V. Perry, Bernard Grofman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
After winning control of both houses of the legislature and the governorship, Texas Republicans eventually succeeded in redistricting Texas’s congressional seats in 2003, replacing a 2001 court-drawn plan. LULAC v. Perry reviewed a number of challenges to that second redistricting. The decision deals with a multiplicity of issues, including, most importantly, the standard for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the nature of tests for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. While there are some clear holdings in the case, several of them reflect different combinations of Justices in the majority and, since there are six different opinions, it …
Lulac On Partisan Gerrymandering: Some Clarity, More Uncertainty, Richard Briffault
Lulac On Partisan Gerrymandering: Some Clarity, More Uncertainty, Richard Briffault
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) v. Perry, the Supreme Court, for the second time in two years, agonized over partisan gerrymandering. LULAC’s rejection of a Democratic challenge to the Texas legislature’s mid-decade pro-Republican congressional redistricting resembles the Court’s 2004 dismissal of a Democratic gerrymandering suit against Pennsylvania’s pro-Republican congressional redistricting plan in Vieth v. Jubelirer. As in Vieth, the Justices wrangled over justiciability, the substantive standard for assessing the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering claims, and the interplay of justiciability and constitutionality. As in Vieth, the Court was highly fragmented: Vieth produced five separate opinions, while LULAC took …
Self-Defeating Minimalism, Adam B. Cox
Self-Defeating Minimalism, Adam B. Cox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Everyone wants a piece of Tom DeLay. The former majority leader is under investigation and indictment, and even the Supreme Court threatened last Term to undo one of his signal achievements. In 2003, DeLay orchestrated a highly unusual mid-decade revision of Texas’s congressional map. The revised map was a boon to Republicans, shifting the Texas congressional delegation from 15 Republicans and 17 Democrats to 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The map was attacked as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear those challenges in LULAC v. Perry, many …
Cultural Compactness, Daniel R. Oritz
Cultural Compactness, Daniel R. Oritz
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court’s opinions in LULAC v. Perry, the Texas redistricting case, confounded expectation. While many believed that the Court would develop the law governing partisan gerrymandering in one direction or another, it did not. As exactly before, such claims are justiciable but there is no law to govern them. In other words, the courthouse doors are open, but until some plaintiff advances a novel theory persuasive to five justices, no claims will succeed. On the other hand, few expected the Court to make any major changes to doctrine under the Voting Rights Act and Shaw v. Reno. But LULAC …
Anthony Kennedy's Blind Quest, Scot Powe, Steve Bickerstaff
Anthony Kennedy's Blind Quest, Scot Powe, Steve Bickerstaff
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
League of United Latin American Citizens [LULAC] v. Perry embraced, in the context of partisan gerrymandering, Felix Frankfurter’s conclusion that the Supreme Court should not enter the political thicket of legislative apportionment. Two years earlier in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Court split 4–1–4 on the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering. O’Conner and the three conservatives held it was nonjusticiable. Each of the four moderate liberals offered a test showing it was justiciable. Kennedy dissented from the conservatives while simultaneously rejecting each of the four tests offered. He announced he was waiting for a better test. When far superior tests were offered …
Strict In Theory, Loopy In Fact, Nathaniel Persily
Strict In Theory, Loopy In Fact, Nathaniel Persily
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Most Supreme Court-watchers find the decision in LULAC v. Perry notable for the ground it breaks concerning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the ground it refuses to break on the topic of partisan gerrymandering. I tend to think the Court’s patchwork application of Section 2 to strike down a district on vote dilution grounds is not all that dramatic, nor is its resolution of the partisan gerrymandering claims all that surprising. The truly unprecedented development in the case for me was Justice Scalia’s vote to uphold what he considered a racial classification under the Equal Protection Clause, …
From Laredo To Fort Worth: Race, Politics And The Texas Redistricting Case, Ellen D. Katz
From Laredo To Fort Worth: Race, Politics And The Texas Redistricting Case, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
LULAC v. Perry held that Texas violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it displaced nearly 100,000 Latino residents from a congressional district in Laredo to protect the Republican incumbent they refused to support. At the same time, the Justices let stand the dismantling of a so-called “coalition” district in Fort Worth where African-American voters comprising a minority of the district’s population allegedly enjoyed effective control in deciding the district’s representative. Only Justice Kennedy supported the outcome in both Laredo and Fort Worth. His opinion marks the first time that he, or indeed a majority of the Justices, …
The Case For Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation, Brian O'Neill
The Case For Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation, Brian O'Neill
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Partisan gerrymandering is a political tradition the United States can no longer afford. Due in part to the effects of partisan gerrymandering, very few congressional elections are meaningfully competitive. This Note argues that partisan gerrymandering damages both the quality of American democracy and the federal system of the United States. This Note concludes that the important federal interests at stake warrant action by Congress to halt partisan gerrymandering. The Note further concludes that any action by Congress should incorporate the principles of federalism by resisting the temptation to micromanage and Congress should instead require state commissions to draft the boundaries …
Resurrecting The White Primary, Ellen D. Katz
Resurrecting The White Primary, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
An unprecedented number of noncompetitive or "safe" electoral districts operate in the United States today. Noncompetitive districts elect officials with more extreme political views and foster more polarized legislatures than do competitive districts. More fundamentally, they inhibit meaningful political participation. That is because participating in an election that is decided before it begins is an empty exercise. Voting in a competitive election is not, even though a single vote will virtually never decide the outcome. What a competitive election offers to each voter is the opportunity to be the coveted swing voter, the one whose support candidates most seek, the …
Vote Dilution And The Census Undercount: A State-By-State Remedy, Christopher M. Taylor
Vote Dilution And The Census Undercount: A State-By-State Remedy, Christopher M. Taylor
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that groups seeking to correct underrepresentation caused by the differential undercount do not have standing to sue the Secretary of Commerce but that they can sue their state governments in an effort to force them to use the best population data available in the construction of congressional districts. Part I details the deeply rooted character of the differential undercount, describes statistical means that could have been employed to adjust the 1990 census, and demonstrates that the adjusted count surpasses the official census as an accurate representation of the true population. Part II examines recent litigation that has …
Can Minority Voting Rights Survive Miller V. Johnson, Laughlin Mcdonald
Can Minority Voting Rights Survive Miller V. Johnson, Laughlin Mcdonald
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Part I of this Article reviews the congressional redistricting process in Georgia, particularly the State's efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and avoid the dilution of minority voting strength. Part II describes the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge and the State's asserted defenses, or more accurately its lack of asserted defenses. Part III argues that the decision of the majority rests upon wholly false assumptions about the colorblindness of the political process and the harm caused by remedial redistricting. Part IV notes the expansion in Miller of the cause of action first recognized in Shaw v. Reno. Part V …
Identifying The Harm In Racial Gerrymandering Claims, Samuel Issacharoff, Thomas C. Goldstein
Identifying The Harm In Racial Gerrymandering Claims, Samuel Issacharoff, Thomas C. Goldstein
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Article proceeds along two lines. First, it reviews the theories of harm set forth in the Justices' various opinions, i.e., the articulated risks to individual rights that may or may not be presented by racial gerrymandering. What is learned from this survey is that Shaw and its progeny serve different purposes for different members of the Court. Four members of the Shaw, Miller v. Johnson, and United States v. Hays majorities-Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas- are far more concerned with "race" than "gerrymandering." In particular, they consider all race-based government classifications to be inherently …
Fair Representation: Meeting The Ideal Of One Man, One Vote, Michigan Law Review
Fair Representation: Meeting The Ideal Of One Man, One Vote, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote by Michel L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young
Reapportionment--Nine Years Into The "Revolution" And Still Struggling, Michigan Law Review
Reapportionment--Nine Years Into The "Revolution" And Still Struggling, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Malapportioned legislative districts traditionally have inhibited the effective working of government at the federal, state, and local levels. By 1960, the population disparities among legislative districts had attained such great magnitude "that the integrity of representative government was in many instances endangered." The underrepresented victims of malapportionment sought relief through the courts. Initially the Supreme Court, ever hesitant to enter the "political thicket," declined to address itself to reapportionment controversies. This era of judicial inaction ended in 1962 with the Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr, in which the plaintiffs overcame the formidable barrier posed by the political-question doctrine. …
Representation And Election: The Reapportionment Cases In Retrospect, William P. Irwin
Representation And Election: The Reapportionment Cases In Retrospect, William P. Irwin
Michigan Law Review
In general, both in the two-year interval between Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims and in the period following the reapportionment decisions of June 1964, discussion of the issue among scholars and publicists has tended to center upon four problems of varying scope and precision: (1) the jurisdiction of the federal courts to pass upon aspects of state legislative apportionment; (2) the justiciability of the same matter; (3) the substantive merits of the several cases; and, (4) the implications of the decisions for democratic theory and practice. No attempt is made here to reopen the argument about federal jurisdiction; …