Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Civil Rights and Discrimination
Race Against The Machine: An Argument For The Standardization Of Voting Technology, Jason Belmont Conn
Race Against The Machine: An Argument For The Standardization Of Voting Technology, Jason Belmont Conn
ExpressO
In this article/note, I examine a lingering question from the court cases arising out of the 2000 election: Does Bush v. Gore and the relevant equal protection case law open the door for a legal challenge to a state’s use of different voting machines/technologies and how do racial disparities in machine error rates impact this analysis? In addition to reviewing the current literature and case law on voting machine standardization, I also present an unrecognized and undocumented connection between the “all deliberate speed” order in Brown and the Court’s discussion of voting technology in Bush v. Gore.
Felon Disenfrachisement Laws: Partisan Politics In The Legislatures, Jason Belmont Conn
Felon Disenfrachisement Laws: Partisan Politics In The Legislatures, Jason Belmont Conn
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This examination of the institutional changes to state legislatures, synthesized with an analysis of the handling of felon disenfranchisement laws by state legislatures, presents a troubling realization about the law today: in the twenty-first century, partisan politics moderates decisions about even the most basic and fundamental principles of democracy. This Note suggests that because state legislators follow their party leadership and position, a state's traditional treatment of racial minorities, geographic location, and even ideology are not the strongest indicators of a state's disenfranchisement laws. Rather, partisan politics drives changes to the state laws governing felon voter eligibility.
After Georgia V. Ashcroft: The Primacy Of Proportionality, Felix B. Chang
After Georgia V. Ashcroft: The Primacy Of Proportionality, Felix B. Chang
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Note argues that the majority in Ashcroft have left courts with an unadministerable standard-not so much for reasons that Justice Souter articulated in his dissent, but rather because the Court provided no guidance on navigating around the myriad of factors in the convoluted totality analyses. In the face of this uncertainty, lower courts will rely increasingly on the proportionality standard of Johnson v. De Grandy, which marked the midpoint in the judicial shift from Justice Brennan's worldview to Justice O'Connor's world-view. Part I examines two cases after Ashcroft which represent different degrees of racial vote dilution: Shirt v. …
Internet Voting With Initiatives And Referendums: Stumbling Towards Direct Democracy, Rebekah K. Browder
Internet Voting With Initiatives And Referendums: Stumbling Towards Direct Democracy, Rebekah K. Browder
Seattle University Law Review
Imagine that it is Tuesday, November 4, 2008, and you realize that you have not yet voted for the candidate that you want to be President of the United States. The polls close at 7 p.m., and it is already 6:45 p.m. Instead of rushing off to the nearest polling place, you simply go to your computer, log in, fill out a ballot, and email your ballot to your designated polling website. The whole process takes fewer than ten minutes, and you have done your civic duty. Leading proponents of Internet voting point to five possible benefits of electronic voting: …
Partisanship Redefined: Why Blanket Primaries Are Constitutional, Deidra A. Foster
Partisanship Redefined: Why Blanket Primaries Are Constitutional, Deidra A. Foster
Seattle University Law Review
In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision that would pave the way for drastic changes in Washington State's election process. In Democratic Party of Washington v. Reed, the court held that Washington's nearly seventy-year-old blanket primary was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. The Ninth Circuit professed to be bound by California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Supreme Court case that ruled California's blanket primary unconstitutional just three years earlier, ignoring the argument that Washington's blanket primary differed materially from California's. What followed was a melee of voter disapproval and …