Notes
Filter
Post List
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.Policing Hatred: Police Bias Units and the Construction of Hate Crime
Much of the scholarly debate about hate crime laws focuses on a discussion of their constitutionality under the First Amendment. Part of a larger empirical study of police methods of investigating hate crimes, this Note attempts to shift thinking in this area beyond the existing debate over the constitutionality of hate crime legislation to a discussion of how low-level criminal justice personnel, such as the police, enforce hate crime laws. This Note argues that, since hate crimes are an area in which police have great discretion in enforcing the law, their understanding of the First Amendment and how it relates to their job is important to the impact that hate crime legislation has in the community. Additionally, research on the enforcement of hate crime laws may inspire further investigation of the broad discretion police officers currently possess in all areas of law.Fourth Amendment Accommodations: (Un)Compelling Public Needs, Balancing Acts, and the Fiction of Consent
The problems of public housing-including crime, drugs, and gun violence- have received an enormous amount of national attention. Much attention has also focused on warrantless searches and consent searches as solutions to these problems. This Note addresses the constitutionality of these proposals and asserts that if the Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is taken to its logical extremes, warrantless searches in public housing can be found constitutional. The author argues, however, that such an interpretation fails to strike the proper balance between public need and privacy in the public housing context. The Note concludes by proposing alternative consent-based regimes that would pass constitutional muster.Moving Ground, Breaking Traditions: Tasha’s Chronicle
This Note uses a fictional dialogue to analyze and engage issues concerning stereotypes, stigmas, and affirmative action. It also highlights the importance of role models for students of color and the disparate hiring practices of law firms and legal employers through the conversations and thoughts of its main character, Tasha Crenshaw.Moving from Colonias to Comunidades: A Proposal for New Mexico to Revisit the Installment Land Contract Debate
Communities of Mexican Americans in the Southwest, known as colonias, have provided many low-income buyers with affordable opportunities. Affordability, however, comes at a high price for the colonias residents. Most of the buyers live in colonias pursuant to installment land contracts, devices which allow buyers to spread the purchase price of property over a number of years but leave them without legal title or equity under New Mexico law. The buyers sacrifice their legal rights to "own" small, unimproved lots of land in developments that are often without electricity, gas, a sewage system, and indoor plumbing. The author argues that New Mexico could allocate rights to buyers under installment land contracts while maintaining the reasonable cost of colonias housing and preserving the communities. She posits several alternatives for the state legislature and judiciary, including the adoption of a statutory definition which treats the contracts as mortgages and a more flexible interpretation of the forfeiture clauses in the contracts pursuant to mortgage and contract law. The Note concludes with suggested outreach strategies to inform colonias residents of their rights under installment land contracts and to provide them with legal assistance to enforce their rights.Race Discourse and Proposition 187
Proposition 187 inspired a visceral public discourse. Proponents and opponents of the measure discussed several themes important to contemporary political theory, particularly themes related to sovereignty and civil rights. This Note shows how participants in that debate-including people of color-spoke of "rights" in a way that denied the possibility for undocumented aliens to have rights. When citizens spoke, they did so in a way that implicitly linked rights to citizenship; in other words, they assumed that without citizenship, persons were not entitled to rights or rights-based claims. Ironically, the debate about Proposition 187 pointed to the achievements of a "civil rights" vision, even as that debate reduced undocumented aliens to "nonpersons," without rights and without a legitimate place in society. California citizens talked, instead, about how useless or useful undocumented aliens were and about how society should best manage them as a resource. The debate raised serious questions about the limits of a civil rights discourse, and about its potential to divide people of color against themselves.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.
