Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Race discrimination (7)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 (6)
- Apportionment (Election law) (4)
- Election law (4)
- Shelby County v. Holder (4)
-
- United States (4)
- Civil rights (3)
- Gerrymandering (3)
- Equality before the law--United States (2)
- Political questions and judicial power (2)
- Suffrage (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Voting (2)
- Associations institutions etc. (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Department of Justice (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Election districts (1)
- Equality (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (1)
- Political participation (1)
- Political theology and race (1)
- Reynolds v. Sims (1)
- South Carolina (1)
- United States. Congress (1)
- Voter registration (1)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 (United States) (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Civil Rights and Discrimination
Slouching Toward Universality: A Brief History Of Race, Voting, And Political Participation, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Slouching Toward Universality: A Brief History Of Race, Voting, And Political Participation, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
This paper examines the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford. It advances two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court's skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that account and argues that the Court's reluctance to intervene is a function of the Court's institutional calculus that it ought to protect its legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent partisan …
Race And Representation Revisited: The New Racial Gerrymandering Cases And Section 2 Of The Vra, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Race And Representation Revisited: The New Racial Gerrymandering Cases And Section 2 Of The Vra, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Voting Rights In Winter: The Death Of A Superstatute, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
The Voting Rights In Winter: The Death Of A Superstatute, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
The Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand today’s voting rights questions. As a result, voting rights activists need to face up to the fact that voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and is never …
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, section 4, on federalism grounds. The Court argued that Congress no longer had the power to enact section 4 because of the “federalism costs” imposed by the Act and because the Act violated "basic principles" of federalism. Unfortunately, the Court failed to articulate the costs to federalism imposed by the Act, much less conduct a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether the benefits of the Act outweighed its costs. Moreover, the Court failed to discuss whether the Reconstruction Amendments ought to matter …
Voting Rights Law And Policy In Transition, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Voting Rights Law And Policy In Transition, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Mapping A Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Mapping A Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay was written for the Yale Law Journal Online Symposium on the future of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder. Professors Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer argue that voting rights activists ought to be prepared for a future in which section 5 is not part of the landscape. If the Court strikes down section 5, an emerging ecosystem of private entities and organized interest groups of various stripes—what they call institutional intermediaries—may be willing and able to mimic the elements that made section 5 an effective regulatory device. As voting rights …
Section 2 Is Dead: Long Live Section 2, Guy-Uriel Charles
Section 2 Is Dead: Long Live Section 2, Guy-Uriel Charles
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Preclearance, Discrimination, And The Department Of Justice: The Case Of South Carolina, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Preclearance, Discrimination, And The Department Of Justice: The Case Of South Carolina, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Challenges To Racial Redistricting In The New Millennium: Hunt V. Cromartie As A Case Study, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Challenges To Racial Redistricting In The New Millennium: Hunt V. Cromartie As A Case Study, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.