Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Democracy And Renewed Distrust: Equal Protection And The Evolving Judicial Conception Of Politics, Bertrall L. Ross

Bertrall L Ross

Judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause have undergone a major transformation over the last fifty years. A Supreme Court once suspicious of the democratic losses of discrete and insular minorities, now closely scrutinizes their democratic victories. A Court once active in structuring the democratic process to be inclusive of racial and other minorities, now views minority representation in the political process as essentially irrelevant. A Court once deferential to exercises of congressional power that enhanced the equal protection rights of minorities, now gives Congress much less leeway.

What explains these shifts? An easy explanation is that the Supreme Court …

Article: No Child Left Behind: Why Race-Based Achievement Goals Violate The Equal Protection Clause, Ayriel Bland

Ayriel Bland

In 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed under President George W. Bush with the goal of increasing academic proficiency for all children in the United States by 2014. Yet, many states struggled to meet this goal and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education allowed states to apply for waivers and bypass the 2014 deadline. Some states implemented waivers though race-based achievement standards. For example, Florida in October 2012, established that by 2018, 74 percent of African American and 81 percent of Hispanic students had to be proficient in math and reading, in comparison to 88 percent …

The Geography Of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence And Implications For Vra Preclearance After Shelby County, Christopher Elmendorf, Douglas Spencer

Christopher S. Elmendorf

The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This paper proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based on between-state differences in the proportion of voting age citizens who subscribe to negative stereotypes about racial minorities and vote accordingly. The new coverage formula could also account for racially polarized voting and minority population size, but, for constitutional reasons, subjective discrimination by voters is the essential criterion. We demonstrate that the …