Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (27)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (15)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (1)
-
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Mercer University School of Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (15)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (15)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (5)
- Book Chapters (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
-
- Catholic University Law Review (2)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- Other Publications (2)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (1)
- Florida State University Law Review (1)
- Mercer Law Review (1)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 54
Full-Text Articles in Law
Racially Neutral In Form, Racially Discriminatory In Fact: The Implications For Voting Rights Of Giving Disproportionate Racial Impact The Constitutional Importance It Deserves, Gary J. Simson
Mercer Law Review
In two decisions in the mid-1970s, Washington v. Davis and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that proving that a law racially neutral on its face disproportionately disadvantages racial minorities does not establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or even create a presumption that such a violation has occurred. Disproportionate racial impact “is not irrelevant,” the Court explained, but “it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution.” The key, according to the Court, lies in proving that the law was the …
“We Are Still Citizens, Despite Our Regrettable Past” Why A Conviction Should Not Impact Your Right To Vote, Jaime Hawk, Breanne Schuster
“We Are Still Citizens, Despite Our Regrettable Past” Why A Conviction Should Not Impact Your Right To Vote, Jaime Hawk, Breanne Schuster
Seattle Journal for Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Section 2 After Section 5: Voting Rights And The Race To The Bottom, Ellen D. Katz
Section 2 After Section 5: Voting Rights And The Race To The Bottom, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Five years ago, Shelby County v. Holder released nine states and fifty-five smaller jurisdictions from the preclearance obligation set forth in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This obligation mandated that places with a history of discrimination in voting obtain federal approval—known as preclearance—before changing any electoral rule or procedure. Within hours of the Shelby County decision, jurisdictions began moving to reenact measures section 5 had specifically blocked. Others pressed forward with new rules that the VRA would have barred prior to Shelby County.
Race, Shelby County, And The Voter Information Verification Act In North Carolina, Michael D. Herron, Daniel A. Smith
Race, Shelby County, And The Voter Information Verification Act In North Carolina, Michael D. Herron, Daniel A. Smith
Florida State University Law Review
Shortly after the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the State of North Carolina enacted an omnibus piece of election- reform legislation known as the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA). Prior to Shelby, portions of North Carolina were covered jurisdictions per the VRA’s sections 4 and 5—meaning that they had to seek federal preclearance for changes to their election procedures— and this motivates our assessment of whether VIVA’s many alterations to North Carolina’s election procedures are race-neutral. We show that in presidential elections in North Carolina black early voters …
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 …
Unseen Exclusions In Voting And Immigration Law, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Unseen Exclusions In Voting And Immigration Law, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Shelby, Race, And Disability Rights, Ravi Malhotra
Shelby, Race, And Disability Rights, Ravi Malhotra
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Preferential Judicial Activism, Sudha Setty
Preferential Judicial Activism, Sudha Setty
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Frederick Douglass On Shelby County, Olympia Duhart
Frederick Douglass On Shelby County, Olympia Duhart
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Post Oppression, Christian B. Sundquist
Post Oppression, Christian B. Sundquist
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Legal Post-Racialism As An Instrument Of Racial Compromise In Shelby County V. Holder, Pantea Javidan
Legal Post-Racialism As An Instrument Of Racial Compromise In Shelby County V. Holder, Pantea Javidan
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Shelby County V. Holder: A Critical Analysis Of The Post-Racial Movement’S Relationship To Bystander Denial And Its Effect On Perceptions Of Ongoing Discrimination In Voting, Abra S. Mason
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Electoral Silver Linings After Shelby, Citizens United And Bennett, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
Electoral Silver Linings After Shelby, Citizens United And Bennett, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Setting Congress Up To Fail, Margaret B. Kwoka
Setting Congress Up To Fail, Margaret B. Kwoka
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Voting Game, Sarah R. Robinson
The Voting Game, Sarah R. Robinson
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Second Reconstruction Is Over, Robert V. Ward Jr.
The Second Reconstruction Is Over, Robert V. Ward Jr.
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Still Fighting After All These Years: Minority Voting Rights 50 Years After The March On Washington, Deborah N. Archer
Still Fighting After All These Years: Minority Voting Rights 50 Years After The March On Washington, Deborah N. Archer
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Any Is Too Much: Shelby County V. Holder And Diminished Citizenship, Peter Halewood
Any Is Too Much: Shelby County V. Holder And Diminished Citizenship, Peter Halewood
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Past As Prologue: Shelby County V. Holder And The Risks Ahead, J. Corey Harris
The Past As Prologue: Shelby County V. Holder And The Risks Ahead, J. Corey Harris
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Jackals, Tall Ships, And The Endless Forest Of Lies: Foreword To Symposium On The Voting Rights Act In The Wake Of Shelby County V. Holder, Anthony Paul Farley
Jackals, Tall Ships, And The Endless Forest Of Lies: Foreword To Symposium On The Voting Rights Act In The Wake Of Shelby County V. Holder, Anthony Paul Farley
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Enforcing The Fifteenth Amendment, Ellen D. Katz
Enforcing The Fifteenth Amendment, Ellen D. Katz
Book Chapters
This chapter examines efforts to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment in the period from United States v. Reese through Shelby County v. Holder. Reese and Shelby County expose the most rigorous stance the Court has employed to review congressional efforts to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, while the years in-between show Congress and the Court working more in tandem, at times displaying remarkable indifference to blatant violations of the Fifteenth Amendment, and elsewhere working cooperatively to help vindicate the Amendment’s promise. Defying simple explanation, this vacillation between cooperation and resistance captures the complex and deeply consequential way concerns about federal power, …
Dismissing Deterrence, Ellen D. Katz
Dismissing Deterrence, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
The proposed Voting Rights Amendment Act of 20144 (VRAA)[...]’s new criteria defining when jurisdictions become subject to preclearance are acutely responsive to the concerns articulated in Shelby County[ v. Holder]. The result is a preclearance regime that, if enacted, would operate in fewer places and demand less from those it regulates. This new regime, however, would not only be more targeted and less powerful, but, curiously, more vulnerable to challenge. In fact, the regime would be more vulnerable precisely because it is so responsive to Shelby County. Some background will help us see why.
A Tale Of Two Minority Groups: Can Two Different Minority Groups Bring A Coalition Suit Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965, Sara Michaloski
A Tale Of Two Minority Groups: Can Two Different Minority Groups Bring A Coalition Suit Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965, Sara Michaloski
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Voting Rights Law And Policy In Transition, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel E. Charles
Voting Rights Law And Policy In Transition, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel E. Charles
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
State's Rights, Last Rites, And Voting Rights, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel Charles
State's Rights, Last Rites, And Voting Rights, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel Charles
Articles by Maurer Faculty
There are two ways to read the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County Alabama v. Holder: as a minimalist decision or as a decision that undermines the basic infrastructure of voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. In this Article, we present the case for reading Shelby County as deeply destabilizing. We argue that Shelby County has undermined three assumptions that are foundational to voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. First, the Court has generally granted primacy of the federal government over the states. Second, the Court has deferred to Congress particularly where Congress is regulating at the intersection of race …
Universalism And Civil Rights (With Notes On Voting Rights After Shelby), Samuel R. Bagenstos
Universalism And Civil Rights (With Notes On Voting Rights After Shelby), Samuel R. Bagenstos
Articles
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, voting rights activists proposed a variety of legislative responses. Some proposals sought to move beyond measures that targeted voting discrimination based on race or ethnicity. They instead sought to eliminate certain problematic practices that place too great a burden on voting generally. Responses like these are universalist, because rather than seeking to protect any particular group against discrimination, they formally provide uniform protections to everyone. As Bruce Ackerman shows, voting rights activists confronted a similar set of questions—and at least some of them opted for a universalist approach—during the campaign …
Blocking The Ballot: Why Florida’S New Voting Restrictions Demonstrate A Need For Continued Enforcement Of The Voting Rights Act Preclearance Requirement, Michael Ellement
Blocking The Ballot: Why Florida’S New Voting Restrictions Demonstrate A Need For Continued Enforcement Of The Voting Rights Act Preclearance Requirement, Michael Ellement
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute's continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute's pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots.
South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process', Ellen D. Katz
South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process', Ellen D. Katz
Articles
When Congress first enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, public officials in South Carolina led the charge to scrap the new statute. Their brief to the Supreme Court of the United States described the VRA as an “unjustified” and “arbitrary” affront to the “Equality of Statehood” principle, and a “usurp[ation]” of the State’s legislative and executive functions. Not surprisingly, the Warren Court was unpersuaded and opted instead to endorse broad congressional power to craft “inventive” remedies to address systematic racial discrimination and to “shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of evil to its victims.” …
Shelby County V. Holder: Why Section 2 Matters, Ellen D. Katz
Shelby County V. Holder: Why Section 2 Matters, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Editor’s Note: Professor Ellen D. Katz writes and teaches about election law, civil rights and remedies, and equal protection. She and the Voting Rights Initiative at Michigan Law filed a brief as amicus curiae in Shelby County v. Holder, on which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments February 27. Here, she examines why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bears consideration in the case, which involves a challenge to Section 5 of the act.