Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Shelby County Problem, Ellen D. Katz
The Shelby County Problem, Ellen D. Katz
Book Chapters
Decided on June 23, 2013, Shelby County v. Holder scrapped the coverage formula set forth in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Congress first enacted this formula in 1965 and, in it, set forth criteria to identify places with low levels of voter participation that was likely attributable to racial discrimination. Once identified, "covered" jurisdictions needed to obtain federal approval, known as preclearance, before changing any electoral practice. Specifically, they needed to demonstrate to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court that proposed changes were not discriminatory in purpose or effect. Shelby County lifted the preclearance …
Not Like The South? Regional Variation And Political Participation Through The Lens Of Section 2, Ellen D. Katz
Not Like The South? Regional Variation And Political Participation Through The Lens Of Section 2, Ellen D. Katz
Book Chapters
Congress voted last summer to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Among the reauthorized provisions is the Section 5 preclearance process, which requires "covered" jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before implementing changes to their voting laws. It is widely assumed that the reauthorization of Section 5 will survive constitutional scrutiny only if the record Congress amassed to support the statute documents pervasive unconstitutional conduct in covered jurisdictions for which preclearance offers a remedy. This paper takes issue with that assumption, arguing that precedent requiring such a record for new congressional legislation enforcing civil rights ought not apply …
Jury Discrimination, James Boyd White
Jury Discrimination, James Boyd White
Book Chapters
Jury discrimination was first recognized as a constitutional problem shortly after the CIVIL WAR, when certain southern and border states excluded blacks from jury service. The Supreme Court had little difficulty in holding such blatant racial discriminationinvalid as a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the recently adopted Fourteenth Amendment. But, beyond such obvious improprieties, what should the principle of nondiscrimination forbid? Some kinds of ‘‘discrimination’’ in the selection of the jury are not bad but good: for example, those incompetent to serve ought to be excused from service, whether their incompetence arises from mental or …