Shelby County v. Holder Argued: February 27, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013
|
|
- Arnold Henry Phelps
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Shelby County v. Holder Argued: February 27, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 BACKGROUND Following the Civil War, the 13 th Amendment (1865) made slavery illegal in the United States. Nevertheless, governments of the Southern States sought to return African Americans to a state of slavery in all but name. In response, two additional amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The 14 th Amendment (1868) defined and guaranteed the rights of citizens of the United States and said that states, not just the national government, must provide due process of law and equal protection of the laws to all people. The 15 th Amendment (1870) said that no state can stop a person from voting because of that person s race or color. Newly freed African Americans created their own churches, started their own schools and businesses, and purchased land. They also voted and held public office. By 1870, African Americans were represented in state legislatures across the South, and 22 African American representatives had been sent to Congress. After federal troops withdrew from the South, however, Southern state and local governments developed legal strategies to block Black voters. They introduced literacy tests and the poll (head) tax on anyone who wanted to vote. They passed grandfather clauses that permitted any white who was allowed to vote before the Civil War or their descendants to vote without paying the poll tax or passing the literacy tests. They used white only primaries to ensure that no African American candidates were available for election. As a result, African American participation in elections plummeted, and Black officeholders disappeared. These practices were used into the 1960s. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was designed to enforce the 15 th Amendment and to address issues that plagued minority voters. It outlawed literacy tests, the poll tax, and other barriers to voting. The Voting Rights Act was sparked by voter registration efforts in Selma, Alabama and was a capstone of the Civil Rights Movement. Originally only a temporary measure, the VRA was reauthorized by Congress in 1970, 1975, 1982, and When Congress passed the VRA, it determined that discrimination in voting was worse in certain areas of the country. Section 4(b) of the VRA contains a formula that determines which states, or subdivisions of states, are covered by special provisions of the Act. Jurisdictions are covered if they used a "test or device" for voting and if less than half of voting age residents voted in the 1964, 1968, or 1972 presidential elections. Coverage is determined by the U.S. Attorney General and the director of the U.S. Census, and is not reviewable by the judiciary. These criteria were later updated in an effort to protect the rights of minority language groups as well.
2 Section 5 of the VRA applies to only covered areas, as identified by Section 4(b). Section 5 outlines a procedure called preclearance. Once covered by Section 5, any change involving voting must be submitted to the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The area must prove that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the District Court denies the requested judgment or if the Attorney General objects to the change, then it remains invalid. FACTS In 2010, Shelby County, Alabama brought a facial challenge against Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County claimed that the preclearance requirement imposed too heavy of a burden on individual states. Shelby County also claimed that the coverage formula was unfair and outdated. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment against Shelby County. That is, the court determined there was no need for a trial because the facts were not disputed and the Attorney General was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Shelby County appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A three-judge panel affirmed the district court s decision in a 2-1 judgment. The D.C. Circuit upheld Sections 4(b) and 5. The D.C. Circuit concluded that Section 5 was still necessary. The D.C. Circuit also held that Section 4 continued to single out the jurisdictions in which discrimination is concentrated. Judge Williams dissented because he thought the coverage formula was irrational and unconstitutional. Shelby County appealed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari that is, it agreed to review the case. The question before the Court was whether Section 4 s coverage formula and Section 5 s preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act was constitutional. ISSUE Did Congress s decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the preexisting coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceed its authority under the 14 th and 15 th Amendments and thus violate the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution?
3 CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS Article IV The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Fifteenth Amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. PRECEDENTS South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) South Carolina invoked the U.S. Supreme Court s original jurisdiction (in this case, because a State is a party) in its attempt to declare parts of the VRA unconstitutional. The Court found the challenged sections to be a valid exercise of Congress s power to enforce the 15 th Amendment. The Court recognized that case-by-case litigation against voting discrimination was not enough. Even when these cases were successful, they were often followed by a shift in discriminatory devices, defiance or evasion of court orders. This case established the standard which the Court holds Congress to. The Court determined that Congress may use any rational means to [effect] the constitutional prohibition of racial voting discrimination. This leaves Congress free to use whatever means are appropriate to carry out the objects of the Constitution. The Court found that Congress was well within its powers to enact these measures.
4 City of Rome v. United States (1980) The City of Rome is in Georgia, a state covered by Section 5 of the VRA. When the City of Rome made changes in its electoral system, the U.S. Attorney General objected. The City sought relief from the VRA. A three-judge court refused to allow the City to bailout of Section 5 s preclearance and granted summary judgment. The City appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held the Act s ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect is a proper way to enforce the 15 th Amendment, even if the Amendment only prohibits intentional discrimination. The Court also denied that Section 5 violated the principles of federalism. The Court explained that the 14 th and 15 th Amendments were specifically designed as an expansion of federal authority and an intrusion on state sovereignty. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder (2009) Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (NAMUDNO) in Texas sought a declaratory judgment that would exempt it from Section 5 s preclearance requirement. NAMUDNO also argued that Section 5 was unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court denied both claims, holding that NAMUDNO was not eligible for bailout because it does not register its own voters. The District Court also held the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA to be valid. NAMUDNO appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held that political subdivisions such as NAMUDNO were eligible to seek bailout, and declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 5. However, the Court mentioned that the VRA s preclearance requirements and its coverage formula raise serious constitutional questions.
5 Arguments for Shelby County (Petitioners) The 15 th Amendment limits but does not usurp the States power to regulate elections. Preclearance s encroachment on state sovereignty is significant and undeniable, according to U.S. v. Sheffield (1978). The preclearance burden is not justified without extreme situations. Things in the South have changed. Congress did not demonstrate that preclearance is still appropriate. Speculation that the Section 5 preclearance requirement is a strong deterrent is not enough to justify its harsh burden. Section 2 is an appropriate and sufficient remedy for today s issues. In Reno v. Bossier II (2000), the Court stated, we have never held that vote dilution violates the Fifteenth Amendment. Since vote dilution is the main focus of the reauthorization, Congress has overstepped its 15 th Amendment authority. The only type of conduct that Congress can remedy is governmental discrimination, Terry v. Adams (1953). Congress said that racially polarized voting was the strongest evidence of the need to extend Section 5. However, that is not discrimination by the government. The coverage formula differentiates between states, which violates the tradition of equal sovereignty among States. Even if preclearance was still appropriate for some places, the coverage formula is not an appropriate way to identify them. Congress justified Section 5 on second-generation barriers, which involve the weight of the vote once it has been cast. However, coverage depends on registration and turnout data, which relate to actual voting prevention. There is a serious mismatch between the formula s triggers for coverage and the purported constitutional basis for reauthorization of preclearance. The second generation barriers are not concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for coverage, according to NAMUDNO v. Holder (2009).
6 Arguments for Holder (Respondents) The reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and the extension of Sections 4(b) and 5 enforce the 14 th and 15 th Amendments. As stated in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966), the appropriate legislation clause is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining what is needed to enforce the 14 th Amendment. Congress decided to extend Section 4(b) s coverage formula and Section 5 s preclearance requirement by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives and by unanimous vote in the Senate. Congress, the people s branch, fully supports the extension of these measures to combat continuing disparities. Congress determined that Section 5 s preclearance requirement is justified by current needs. The legislative record proves that voting discrimination is an ongoing problem in the covered areas. Congress held 21 hearings, heard from over 90 witnesses, and compiled a record of over 15,000 pages of evidence. Therefore, the Court should exercise judicial deference and allow Congress to fulfill its duty. Section 2 is an inadequate remedy for discriminatory voting practices. From , there were hundreds of objections from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discriminatory voting changes. There were more information requests from the DOJ that resulted in the withdrawal or modification of over 800 potentially discriminatory voting changes. There is also evidence that Section 5 has a powerful deterrent effect. The validity of the Voting Rights Act is not undermined by advances in voting equality since Striking down an Act because it is effective is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. The bailout and bail-in provisions of the Voting Rights Act remedy the over- and undercoverage of the formula. Almost 200 jurisdictions have successfully bailed out of the preclearance requirement, and DOJ has consented to every bailout application filed by an eligible jurisdiction since the current procedure became effective in Precedent indicates that Section 5 should withstand constitutional challenges. After Reno v. Bossier II (2000), Congress changed the definition to include any discriminatory
7 purpose. The Court has consistently upheld the preclearance requirement as a valid exercise of Congressional authority. The question before the Court is not whether Congress has chosen the best way to enforce the 15 th Amendment, but whether Congress has chosen a reasonable and appropriate way to achieve a legitimate end. DECISIONS (5-4) In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court s decision and held that Section 4(b) s coverage formula was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Although the majority found Section 4(b) s formula to be unconstitutional, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 5. The majority indicated that Congress was free to draft a new coverage formula to decide which areas would be covered by Section 5. However, until a new formula is drafted, Section 5 is rendered dormant. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. MAJORITY Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court. The Court held that the coverage formula violates the principle of equal sovereignty among the States by subjecting states to different conditions in regards to voting procedures. The Court argued that the VRA was enacted in a different context and that things have changed dramatically. The Court held that the desperate conditions warranting the VRA justified breaching State powers. However, the Court concluded that without these extreme conditions, Section 4(b) s formula is unconstitutional. The Court also determined that the formula did not meet the criteria of NAMUDNO, which stated that current burdens must be justified by current needs. The Court concluded that Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The Court noted that Congress did not update the coverage formula, and said that was unacceptable. The Court rejected the government s argument that claimed the formula was valid because it effectively targeted the states whose conditions mandated coverage without calling them out by name. The Court held that argument was not convincing, and said that it does not reflect current conditions. The majority insists that history did not end in 1965.
8 The Court concluded by reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and claiming that Congress s failure to act left the justices with no choice but to declare Section 4(b) unconstitutional. CONCURRENCE Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, in order to explain that he would find Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as well. He agreed with the opinion of the Court but stated that he would have taken it a step further. DISSENT In dissent, Justice Ginsburg raised several issues. Ginsburg pointed out that the 14 th and 15 th Amendments delegated broad powers to Congress for enforcement. The dissent argued that the Court should defer to Congress s judgment in this case. The dissent pointed out the extensive evidence that Congress gathered when reauthorizing the VRA. Ginsburg also denied that voting discrimination has ended and listed several examples of discrimination that persist in covered jurisdictions. The dissent also rejected the Court s application of the principle of equal sovereignty among the states. Ginsburg pointed out that this applies only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared. Using the principle of equal sovereignty to justify overturning congressional action is untenable according to Katzenbach. Finally, Justice Ginsburg questioned the notion that the success of the VRA translates to its expiration. She compared throwing out preclearance when it has worked to throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. She voiced her concern that discriminatory practices will return if Congress does not draft a new formula. The Court appears to believe that the VRA s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed.... The same assumption that the problem could be solved when particular methods of voting discrimination are identified and eliminated was indulged and proved wrong repeatedly prior to the VRA s enactment.... [H]istory repeats itself.
9 Glossary Affirm: The decision of a superior court to uphold, ratify, or otherwise agree with the decision reached by a lower court. Certiorari: Meaning in Latin to be made certain, a writ of certiorari is issued when a higher court orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so the higher court may review it. Concurrence/Concurring Opinion: An opinion written separately from the majority. A concurrence agrees with the result of the decision but reached that decision for different reasons. Dissent/ Dissenting Opinion: An opinion written separately from that majority and does not agree with the decision for the case. Facial Challenge: A challenge to a statute made by a plaintiff who is alleging that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. If a facial challenge is successful, the court will strike down the law entirely. This is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which just claims that the specific application of the law in question is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that, for a facial challenge to succeed, there must be no set of circumstances under which the measure is constitutional. Judicial Deference: The reluctance of the judiciary being unwilling to get overly involved in legal areas that are rightfully in Congress s domain. Original Jurisdiction: A court s power to hear and decide a case before another court may review the case. Whatever court has original jurisdiction should be the court to first hear a case. Petitioner: A person who pleads with a government institution for a legal remedy or a redress of grievances. Preclearance Requirement: The administrative procedure required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. States and jurisdictions covered under the Act must submit all changes affecting voting for preapproval by the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The county must prove that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
10 Remand: To send back. An appellate court may send a case back to the trial court for further action. Respondents: The party who must answer a petition for a court order or writ; the defendant. Reversal: The decision of a superior court to overturn, or reverse, the decision reached by the lower court. The lower court s decision is then annulled. Summary Judgment: A way to decide a case without a trial. For summary judgment to be granted, there must be no genuine disputes about the facts of the case, and the person petitioning for summary judgment must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Vacate the Judgment: To make a prior legal judgment void. Usually this is an appellate court overturning or reversing the judgment of a lower court. Vote Dilution: The nullification of minority group votes by a majority voting as a block.
11 Sources Court Cases City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). Lopez et al v. Monterey County, California, 525 U.S. 266 (1999). Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009). Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000). Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953). United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Alabama, et al, 435 U.S. 110 (1978). Other Sources Amar-Dolan, Jeremy, and Zachary Zemlin. Shelby County v. Holder. From Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Accessed 1 July
12 Brief for the Federal Respondent, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Brief of Gabriel Chin, Atiba Ellis, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Janai S. Nelson, Bertrall Ross, Daniel Tokaji, and Franita Tolson as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Brief of Justice and Freedom Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Brief for Petitioner, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Brief for Respondent-Intervenors Bobby Pierson, Willie Goldsmith, Sr., Mary Paxton-Lee, Kenneth Dukes, and Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Chin, Gabriel J. Do Civil Rights Laws Become Invalid If They Work? From the American Constitution Society Blog. 26 February Drum, Kevin. Compare and Contrast: Laws That Protect White Voting vs. Laws That Protect Black Voting. In MotherJones, 25 June Ellis, Atiba R. Mission Accomplished? Post-Racialism and Shelby County. From the American Constitution Society Blog. 25 February Fishkin, Joseph. The Dignity of the South. 123 Yale Law Journal Online 175 (2013).
13 Katz, Ellen D. A Cure Worse than the Disease? 123 Yale Law Journal Online 117 (2013). Levitt, Justin. Section 5 as Simulacrum, 123 Yale Law Journal Online 151 (2013). Northwest Austin Municipal v. Holder. From Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Pilon, Roger. Facial v. As-Applied Challenges: Does It Matter? in Cato Supreme Court Review, 8 ( ). Pitts, Michael. Shelby County v. Holder: Reasons to Believe. From SCOTUSblog. 11 February Posner, Richard A. The Supreme Court s Conservatives Imagined Their Way to Striking Down Part of the Voting Rights Act. ourt_2013/the_supreme_court_and_the_voting_rights_act_striking_down_the_law_is_all. html Schwinn, Steven D. Federalism and the Voting Rights Act. From the American Constitution Society Blog. 26 February Schwinn, Steven D. Justice Ginsburg s Dissent in Shelby County. From The Constitutional Law Prof Blog. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, from The United States Department of Justice. Transcript of the Oral Argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Transcript of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, courtesy of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.
14 Was John Roberts Right in Shelby County? From Tampa Bay Times Politifact.com.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1396 VICKY M. LOPEZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. MONTEREY COUNTY ET AL. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationRECENT DECISION I. FACTS
RECENT DECISION Constitutional Law -- The Fifteenth Amendment and Congressional Enforcement -- Interpreting the Voting Rights Act to Render All Political Subdivisions Eligible for Bailout Rather Than Deciding
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney April 2, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney August 30, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationof 1957 and 1960, however these acts also did very little to end voter disfranchisement.
The Voting Rights Act in the 21st century: Reducing litigation and shaping a country of tolerance Adam Adler, M. Kousser For 45 years, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has protected the rights of millions of
More informationI. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301; 86 S. Ct. 803; 15 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1966)
Page!1 I. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301; 86 S. Ct. 803; 15 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1966) II. Facts: Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using any kind of test at polls that may prevent
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney February 24, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42482 Summary The Constitution
More informationSTATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS FROM SELMA TO SHELBY COUNTY: WORKING TOGETHER TO RESTORE THE PROTECTIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT SENATE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-96 In the Supreme Court of the United States Shelby County, Alabama, v. Petitioner, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationDISMISSING DETERRENCE
DISMISSING DETERRENCE Ellen D. Katz Last June, in Shelby County v. Holder, 1 the Supreme Court scrapped section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. 2 That provision subjected jurisdictions that met specified
More informationTo request an editable PPT version of this presentation, send a request to 1
To view this PDF as a projectable presentation, save the file, click View in the top menu bar of the file, and select Full Screen Mode ; upon completion of the presentation, hit ESC on your keyboard to
More informationSection 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Necessary then and necessary now.
The Ohio State University From the SelectedWorks of Chanel A Walker Spring April 23, 2013 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Necessary then and necessary now. Chanel A Walker, The Ohio State University
More informationCooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017).
Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017). ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING TOP 8 REDISTRICTING CASES SINCE 2010 Plaintiffs alleged that the North Carolina legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause when it increased
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 74 Filed 02/16/11 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 74 Filed 02/16/11 Page 1 of 20 SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00651-JDB
More informationUnited States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives Field Hearing on Restore the Vote: A Public Forum on Voting Rights Hosted by Representative Terri Sewell Birmingham, Alabama March 5, 2016 Testimony of Spencer Overton
More informationAssessment of Voting Rights Progress in Jurisdictions Covered Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act
Assessment of Voting Rights Progress in Jurisdictions Covered Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act Submitted to the United s Senate Committee on the Judiciary May 17, 2006 American Enterprise Institute
More informationSection 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered jurisdictions mostly,
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder: Must Congress Update the Voting Rights Act s Coverage Formula for Preclearance? By Michael R. Dimino* Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered jurisdictions
More informationNATIONAL COMMISSION ON VOTING RIGHTS
PROTECTING MINORITY VOTERS: OUR WORK IS NOT DONE 22 NATIONAL COMMISSIONERS Background: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 This Report s assessment of recent voting discrimination in the United States begins
More informationGovernment by the People: Why America Needs a Constitutional Right to Vote
The Ohio State University From the SelectedWorks of Samantha Jensen December, 2013 Government by the People: Why America Needs a Constitutional Right to Vote Samantha Jensen, The Ohio State University
More informationBRIEF FOR PETITIONER
No. 12-96 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 100 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 100 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official
More informationMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Street Law Case Summary Argued: March 2, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010 Background The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but there has been an ongoing national debate
More informationCase 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 16-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 16-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS Plaintiff, Case No. 1:12-cv-00128 RMC-DST-RLW vs.
More informationHighlights: The Evolution of Voting Rights and their Impact on Political Participation SS.7.C.3.7
Highlights: The Evolution of Voting Rights and their Impact on Political Participation SS.7.C.3.7 Analyze the impact of the 13 th, 14 th, 15 th, 19 th, 24 th, and 26 th amendments on participation of minority
More informationAre We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases
Are We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases Francisco M. Negrón, Jr. Associate Executive Director & General Counsel National School
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18-422 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT A. RUCHO, et al., v. COMMON CAUSE, et al., Appellants, Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
More informationVOTING RIGHTS 2014 Sweet Home Alabama
VOTING RIGHTS 2014 Sweet Home Alabama The 15 th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,
More informationShelby County v. Holder: When the Rational Becomes Irrational
Shelby County v. Holder: When the Rational Becomes Irrational JON GREENBAUM* ALAN MARTINSON** SONIA GILL*** INTRODUCTION... 812 I. THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT LEADING UP TO SHELBY COUNTY... 815 A.
More informationPETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 12- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 12-96 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1161 In The Supreme Court of the United States Beverly R. Gill, et al., v. William Whitford, et al., Appellants, Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District
More informationInternational Municipal Lawyers Association. Voting Rights Litigation: Dealing with the 2010 Census Columbia, S.C.
International Municipal Lawyers Association Voting Rights Litigation: Dealing with the 2010 Census Columbia, S.C. Voting Rights, Electoral Transparency & Participation in the Political Process: Current
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 5 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 58 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 5 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 58 SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00651-JDB ERIC
More informationNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ISSUE BRIEF. S.1945 and H.R. 3899
NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ISSUE BRIEF S.1945 and H.R. 3899 VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014 THE BILL: S. 1945 and H.R. 3899: The Voting Rights Act of 2014 - Summary: to amend the Voting Rights Act of
More informationNew Developments in the Meaning of the Voting Rights Act. Nate Persily Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science Columbia Law School
New Developments in the Meaning of the Voting Rights Act Nate Persily Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science Columbia Law School 1 New Developments Section 2 Bartlett v. Strickland (2009), LULAC
More informationCOSSA Colloquium on Social and Behavioral Science and Public Policy
COSSA Colloquium on Social and Behavioral Science and Public Policy Changes Regarding Race in America : The Voting Rights Act and Minority communities John A. Garcia Director, Resource Center for Minority
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:11-cv-01428-CKK-MG-ESH Document 140 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ERIC H.
More informationMagruder s American Government
Presentation Pro Magruder s American Government C H A P T E R 6 Voters and Voter Behavior 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. The History of Voting Rights The Framers of the Constitution purposely left the power
More information12.12 Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. By Jackie Suarez, Joanne Kim, Kaitlynn Barbosa, Chenith Say, and Giselle Morales Period 5
12.12 Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments By Jackie Suarez, Joanne Kim, Kaitlynn Barbosa, Chenith Say, and Giselle Morales Period 5 Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
More informationJOINT BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLEES
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 14-5138 SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., In his official
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-96 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 9-1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 9-1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA 201 West College Street Columbiana, AL 35051 Plaintiffs,
More informationMagruder s American Government
Presentation Pro Magruder s American Government C H A P T E R 6 Voters and Voter Behavior 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. C H A P T E R 6 Voters and Voter Behavior SECTION 1 The Right to Vote SECTION 2 Voter
More informationStatement of. Sherrilyn Ifill President & Director-Counsel. Ryan P. Haygood Director, Political Participation Group
Statement of Sherrilyn Ifill President & Director-Counsel & Ryan P. Haygood Director, Political Participation Group & Leslie M. Proll Director, Washington Office NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
More informationInternational Municipal Lawyers Association 2014 Mid Year Seminar Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska/Aleutian Ballroom Hilton Anchorage Hotel
International Municipal Lawyers Association 2014 Mid Year Seminar Anchorage, Alaska May 20, 2014 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM Work Session IX: VOTING RIGHTS IMPACT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014 & SHELBY
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 7 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 7 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 1 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS c/o Attorney General Greg Abbott 209 West 14th Street
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:11-cv-01428-CKK-MG-ESH Document 122 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ERIC H.
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 67 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 67 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity
More informationReflections on the History And Future of the Voting Rights Act in the Wake of Shelby County
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research CUNY School of Law 2013 Reflections on the History And Future of the Voting Rights Act in the Wake of Shelby County Frank
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 48 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 48 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official
More informationChapter 7: The Judicial Branch
Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch US Government Week of January 22, 2018 [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of
More informationAP Gov Chapter 15 Outline
Law in the United States is based primarily on the English legal system because of our colonial heritage. Once the colonies became independent from England, they did not establish a new legal system. With
More informationChapter 6: Voters and Voter Behavior Section 1
Chapter 6: Voters and Voter Behavior Section 1 The Electorate The Constitution originally gave the power to decide voter qualifications to the States. Since 1789, many restrictions on voting rights have
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 1:11-cv-01428-CKK-MG-ESH Document 123 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ERIC
More informationVOTERS MINORITY NOT DONE PROTECTING OUR WORK IS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A REPORT BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON VOTING RIGHTS
MINORITY 2014 OUR WORK IS NOT DONE A REPORT BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON VOTING RIGHTS NATIONAL COMMISSION ON VOTING RIGHTS VOTERS 6 NATIONAL COMMISSIONERS PROTECTING PROTECTING MINORITY VOTERS: OUR WORK
More informationChapter 6: Voters and Voter Behavior Section 3
Chapter 6: Voters and Voter Behavior Section 3 Objectives 1. Describe the tactics often used to deny African Americans the right to vote despite the command of the 15 th Amendment. 2. Understand the significance
More informationRedistricting: Nuts & Bolts. By Kimball Brace Election Data Services, Inc.
Redistricting: Nuts & Bolts By Kimball Brace Election Data Services, Inc. Reapportionment vs Redistricting What s the difference Reapportionment Allocation of districts to an area US Congressional Districts
More informationUniversity of Miami. From the SelectedWorks of Cameron W Eubanks. Cameron W Eubanks, University of Miami. May 7, 2009
University of Miami From the SelectedWorks of Cameron W Eubanks May 7, 2009 Will the Supreme Court Send the VRA's Biggest Sunset Provision into the Sunset?: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District
More informationShelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 22 Issue 3 Article 3 Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism Richard L. Hasen Repository Citation Richard L. Hasen, Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism,
More informationShelby County v. Holder and the Demise of Section 5: What is Next for Voting Rights in Texas?
The Sixteenth Annual Riley Fletcher Basic Municipal Law Seminar February 5-6, 2015 Texas Municipal Center - Austin, Texas Shelby County v. Holder and the Demise of Section 5: What is Next for Voting Rights
More informationWho Should Be Afforded More Protection in Voting the People or the States? The States, According to the Supreme Court in Shelby County v.
Touro Law Review Volume 31 Number 4 Article 16 August 2015 Who Should Be Afforded More Protection in Voting the People or the States? The States, According to the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 3 HISTORICAL ERAS OF INFLUENCE 1787-1865 Political Nation building (legitimacy of govt.) Slavery 1865-1937 Economic Govt. roll in economy Great Depression 1937-Present Ideological
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 65 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 65 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 74 SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00651-JDB
More informationRACIAL GERRYMANDERING
Racial Gerrymandering purposeful drawing of boundaries of electoral districts in such a way that dilutes the vote of racial minorities or fails to provide an opportunity for racial minorities to elect
More informationSTATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY DECEMBER 19, 2012
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 557 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 322 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIS- TRICT NUMBER ONE, APPELLANT v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. ON APPEAL
More informationGeorgia Municipal Association
Page 1 Georgia Municipal Association -209- "Bailing Out of the Preclearance Requirements of the Voting Rights Act Presented by: Douglas Chalmers, Jr. Jason Torchinsky Page 2 Legal Information This presentation
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-5256 Document #1374370 Filed: 05/18/2012 Page 1 of 100 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 19, 2012 Decided May 18, 2012 No. 11-5256 SHELBY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1016 d IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL COLEMAN, v. Petitioner, MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS, Frank Broccolina, State Court Administrator, Larry Jones, Contract Administrator, Respondent.
More informationCase 1:14-cv JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:14-cv-00097-JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION HENRY D. HOWARD, et al., v. Plaintiffs, AUGUSTA-RICHMOND
More informationChapter 11 and 12 - The Federal Court System
Chapter 11 and 12 - The Federal Court System SSCG16 The student will demonstrate knowledge of the operation of the federal judiciary. Powers of the Federal Courts Federal courts are generally created by
More informationFederal Governmental Power: The Voting Rights Act
Touro Law Review Volume 26 Number 2 Article 7 September 2012 Federal Governmental Power: The Voting Rights Act Michael C. Dorf Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview
More informationChp. 4: The Constitution
Name: Date: Period: Chp 4: The Constitution Filled In Notes Chp 4: The Constitution 1 Objectives about The Constitution The student will demonstrate knowledge of the Constitution of the United States by
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ) a political subdivision of ) the Commonwealth of Virginia, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:13-cv-00625 )
More informationAMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 8: The New Deal/Great Society Era Democratic Rights/Voting/Voting
More informationPromises to Keep The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006
Promises to Keep The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 Caroline Fredrickson Director Washington Legislative Office Deborah J. Vagins Policy Counsel for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Washington
More informationCase 1:10-cv LG-RHW Document 220 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:10-cv-00564-LG-RHW Document 220 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V. NO.
More informationThe Judicial System (cont d)
The Judicial System (cont d) Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78: Executive: Holds the sword of the community as commander-in-chief. Congress appropriates money ( commands the purse ) and decides the
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08-322 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NORTHWEST AUSTIN
More informationThe Federalist, No. 78
The Judicial Branch January 2015 [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible
More informationARTICLE RIDING WITHOUT A LEARNER S PERMIT: HOW TEXAS CAN GUARANTEE THE VOTING RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ON ITS OWN HOOF. Ann McGeehan
ARTICLE RIDING WITHOUT A LEARNER S PERMIT: HOW TEXAS CAN GUARANTEE THE VOTING RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ON ITS OWN HOOF Ann McGeehan I. INTRODUCTION... 139 II. BACKGROUND... 141 III. POST-PRECLEARANCE... 144
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 68 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 33 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 68 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 33 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION
Case 3:13-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/26/13 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION HONORABLE TERRY PETTEWAY, HONORABLE DERRECK
More informationElections and the Courts. Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center
Elections and the Courts Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center lsoronen@sso.org Overview of Presentation Recent cases in the lower courts alleging states have limited access to voting on a racially
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 14A393, 14A402 and 14A404 MARC VEASEY, ET AL. 14A393 v. RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES,
More informationChapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1
Chapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1 Origins of the Judiciary The Constitution created the Supreme Court. Article III gives Congress the power to create the rest of the federal court system,
More informationCase 1:10-cv ESH -HHK Document 31 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-01062-ESH -HHK Document 31 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE STATE OF GEORGIA v. Plaintiff Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-01062 (ESH,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08-322 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NORTHWEST AUSTIN
More informationSubsequent History Omitted
Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository The Circuit California Law Review 11-2014 Subsequent History Omitted Joel Heller Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/clrcircuit
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
dno. 12-96 SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, v. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationWhat If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?
What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal? With a possible Merrick Garland confirmation and the prospect of another Democrat in the Oval Office, the left can t help but dream about an ideal judicial docket:
More informationCase 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 17 EXHIBIT 1
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 871-1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 17 EXHIBIT 1 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 871-1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
More informationa. Exceptions: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, and a few others B. Debate is over how the Constitution should be interpreted
I. The American Judicial System A. Only in the United States do judges play so large a role in policy-making - The policy-making potential of the federal judiciary is enormous. Woodrow Wilson once described
More informationCase 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1613 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 13
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1613 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, and
More informationTestimony of Professor Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights
Justin Levitt Associate Professor of Law 213.736.7417 justin.levitt@lls.edu Testimony of Professor Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights Redistricting
More informationRecent State Election Law Challenges: In Brief
Recent State Election Law Challenges: In Brief L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney November 2, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44675 Summary During the final months and weeks
More informationVoting Rights League of Women Voters of Mason County May Pat Carpenter-The ALEC Study Group
Voting Rights League of Women Voters of Mason County May 2016 Pat Carpenter-The ALEC Study Group Essential to the League s Mission Protection of Voting Rights Promotion of Voting Rights Expansion of Voting
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 63-1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 26 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 63-1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 26 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official
More information