All content tagged with: Voting Rights
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.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.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.”Can Minority Voting Rights Survive Miller v. Johnson
Part I of this Article reviews the congressional redistricting process in Georgia, particularly the State's efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and avoid the dilution of minority voting strength. Part II describes the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge and the State's asserted defenses, or more accurately its lack of asserted defenses. Part III argues that the decision of the majority rests upon wholly false assumptions about the colorblindness of the political process and the harm caused by remedial redistricting. Part IV notes the expansion in Miller of the cause of action first recognized in Shaw v. Reno. Part V comments on the lack of clear, fair standards in Miller and how that will impact upon legislative decision making and litigation. Part VI discusses the negative impact of the decision, which allows, for the first time, local federal district courts directly to review the preclearance decisions of the Attorney General on the administration of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Part VII argues that Miller has the potential for purging substantial numbers of minorities from elected office in the South and wiping out many of the gains so painstakingly won under the Voting Rights Act over the last thirty years.
