All content categorized with: Voting
Filter
Post List
Felon Disenfrachisement Laws: Partisan Politics in the Legislatures
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.Through the Lens of Diversity: The Fight for Judicial Elections After Republic Party of Minnesota V. White
This Article is directed at the ongoing discussion taking place in many states and among members of the bench and bar about whether states that elect judges should switch to appointment in light of White. The author argues that states should resist what he regards as the Court's heavy-handed dicta denouncing judicial elections in White. Rather than accede to the pressure to shift from an elective to an appointive system-pressure that is being felt in several states- the author contends that states should regard the White decision as an opportunity to engage in a thorough and far-reaching review of judicial selection. Before presuming that judicial elections ipso facto cannot be reconciled with the ideal of judges as independent, impartial decision-makers, states should seek ways to improve their methods of judicial selection in order to improve judicial decision-making. States with judicial elections should be prepared to drastically transform the way judges are elected to address what I concede are significant failings in most judicial election systems. Principal among these deficiencies, in my view, is the failure of judicial elections to adequately address the lack of racial diversity on the nation's courts.Strategic Voting and African-Americans: True Vote, True Representation, True Power for the Black Community
As long as American politics remain securely bound to the two-party system, Blacks will remain a voting block; a block that may shift, but a block nonetheless. And although this appears to be to our strategic disadvantage, allowing conviction to direct us, as well as a deep respect for the intense struggle for the franchise, will forever be a noble posture.Redefining American Democracy: Do Alternative Voting Systems Capture the True Meaning of “Representation”?
This Article explores whether alternative voting systems are compatible with the meaning of representation in the United States. Part II begins by examining the role of geographical representation and the effect it has on the ability of individuals and groups of voters to give or withhold their consent. Part III follows this inquiry by assessing the relationship between representatives and constituents under majoritarian and proportional systems to determine the consequences of moving away from geographical representation towards models designed to enhance opportunities for all voters to choose winning candidates. A description of what a "majority" is and when and how it is attained to secure the people's consent then is taken up in Part IV, providing some insight into the extent to which departures from majority rule are consistent with the American conception of representation. This discussion leads into Part V, which evaluates the role of our two-party system and ascertains whether proportional models of representation can cure the perceived defects of winner-take-all elections without undermining the continued stability of our Republic.Lowering the Preclearance Hurdle Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 120 S. Ct. 866 (2000)
This Case Note examines a recent Supreme Court decision that collapses the purpose and effect prongs of Section 5, effectively lowering the barrier to preclearance for covered jurisdictions. In Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board II the Court determined that Section 5 disallows only voting plans that are enacted with a retrogressive purpose (i.e., with the purpose to "worsen" the position of minority voters). The Court held that Section 5 does not prohibit preclearance of a plan enacted with a discriminatory purpose but without a retrogressive effect. Evidence of a Section 2 violation alone will not be enough to prove a jurisdiction's discriminatory purpose and prevent Section 5 preclearance.Sense and Nonsense: Standing in the Racial Districting Cases as a Window on the Supreme Court’s View of the Right to Vote
Congressional redistricting draws the lines within which battles for political power will be fought. It is no surprise, therefore, that the redistricting process has long been the subject of social debate and legal dispute. The Supreme Court has not been able to resolve this dispute, in part, because the Justices have conflicting interpretations of the right to vote. While some Justices view voting as an individual right, others maintain that voting is correctly perceived as group right. This lack of consensus regarding the definition of the right to vote has led to a confusing articulation of the harm implicated by recent districting cases, and of the identification of which citizens can seek redress for that harm. In this Article, the Author provides an overview of modern standing doctrine and focuses on the Court's application (or non- application) in districting cases of the requirement that plaintiffs show an injury-in-fact in order to have standing to sue. It is noted that in recent districting cases, the Court has allowed standing for the type of generalized grievance for which the Court has consistently denied standing in other areas of law. This deviation from established standing doctrine is often criticized as nonsensical. The Author however, argues that this new standing doctrine can only be explained and understood, when limited to voting cases, as reflective of the individual justices' interpretations of the right to vote. The Author concludes that the atypical standing doctrine articulated in the recent districting cases underscores the need for the Court to develop and employ a richer conception of the right to vote that encompasses the goal of achieving a politically fair system.Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono:Voting Rights and the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Plebiscite
Using the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Plebiscite to investigate the complex interplay between race, nationalism, and the special purpose district exception, this Note chronicles the development of relevant legal doctrines and the history of the Native Hawaiians' quest for self-government in an attempt to untangle those issues. In doing so, this Note concludes that the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Plebiscite was an unconstitutional method of securing sovereign rights for Native Hawaiians, but that a Native Hawaiian claim to at least some form of self-government is justified. As a result, this Note searches for a method that will guarantee self-government as well as constitutionality and the recognition of all interests involved. It proceeds to analyze various voting systems, administrative mechanisms, and constitutional doctrines, and concludes by using this analysis to design a process that balances democratic philosophies, public interests, and the interests of Native Hawaiians who want sovereignty.Identifying the Harm in Racial Gerrymandering Claims
This Article proceeds along two lines. First, it reviews the theories of harm set forth in the Justices' various opinions, i.e., the articulated risks to individual rights that may or may not be presented by racial gerrymandering. What is learned from this survey is that Shaw and its progeny serve different purposes for different members of the Court. Four members of the Shaw, Miller v. Johnson, and United States v. Hays majorities-Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas- are far more concerned with "race" than "gerrymandering." In particular, they consider all race-based government classifications to be inherently injurious, and they appear to view the racial gerrymandering cases as a vehicle for moving the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment closer to the ideal of "colorblindness.”Drawing the Line on Incumbency Protection
In an effort to fill the void in scholarly debate and legal analysis, this Note evaluates incumbency protection as a redistricting principle and analyzes its treatment in various court opinions. After arguing that protecting incumbents is not a legitimate redistricting objective, this Note illustrates how the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have been reluctant to pass judgment on incumbency protection. This Note contrasts this "hands-off" approach to the strict scrutiny afforded claims of racial gerrymandering and argues that such an approach enables incumbents to manipulate the Voting Rights Act for their self-interest. Additionally, this Note argues that incumbents, a disproportionate majority of whom are White, are effectively protected at the expense of efforts to enhance minority voting power and that the Court's double standard offends notions of equal protection. This Note concludes that the current approach to redistricting undermines the legitimacy of the electoral process and briefly considers alternatives.The Empitness of Majority Rule
In this Note, the author steers away from the current substantive debates surrounding the Voting Rights Act, its various amendments, and the "correct" way of interpreting its intended benefits and constitutionally accepted mandates. Instead, indirectly joins the many "radical" voices advocating for a departure from the majoritarian stranglehold-the decision-making process where fifty percent plus one of the voting population carry the election. The author does so not by suggesting yet another mechanism by which representatives may be elected, but by critiquing the perceived underpinnings of our democratic system of government. The author does not profess to delineate a definitive interpretation of American democracy, but rather to show what it is not required to be. More specifically, this Note directly confronts the majoritarian foundation upon which America's political society arguably rests, and posits that our reliance on the simple majoritarian paradigm is unwarranted. In short, the author argues that democracy entails anything from unanimous decision-making to simple, fifty-percent-plus-one majority rule.
