Ap u.s. government & politics Friday, April 20, 2018

Unit 6 vocabulary quiz

Massive resistance: group readings and class discussion

Heightened scrutiny, voting rights, & discriminatory purpose v. effect

Suspect Classifications and Strict Scrutiny Review: What is rational basis review? What is intermediate scrutiny? What is strict scrutiny? All classifications based on race or ethnicity are subject to Strict Scrutiny What about laws that are racially neutral, but whose EFFECTS are racially discriminatory?

Evolution of strict scrutiny

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Law barring blacks from jury service is Struck Down Jury service is a Political Right—not covered by the Original Understanding of the 14th. Court gets around this by classifying it as a Civil Right Also—from the perspective of the Defendant; in order to insure a fair trial

Korematsu v. United States (1944) Challenge to Relocation Orders, for Japanese citizens on the West Coast during WWII (and their internment) The Strict Scrutiny Test is articulated for the First Time; although the order is Upheld The test was Articulated, but not really Applied—the statute was upheld with a total lack of evidence; and the burden was put on the challengers. Safety of the homeland during wartime is accepted as a Compelling government interest; but there is no firm showing of the Necessity of the orders

Loving v. Virginia (1967) Ban on inter-racial marriage is Struck Down. By 1967, shifts in public opinion had made this an easy case for the court, Politically The doctrinally difficult point was Virginia’s argument that the statute treated both races Equally The Court applies Strict Scrutiny anyway; and concludes that the statute is based on obvious notions of white supremacy, and is therefore impermissible

Discriminatory Purpose vs. Effect Washington v. Davis (1976) Plaintiffs challenge a mandatory test for employment with the DC Police; which measures reading comprehension, etc. The test has a Disproportionate Impact on minorities Court settles on Discriminatory Purpose as the trigger for Strict Scrutiny Disproportionate Effect is one piece of Evidence in finding Discriminatory Purpose; but is not the sole touchstone How will this affect the issue of voting rights for minorities?

Racial Discrimination and Voting Rights

Baker v. Carr (1962) Pre-dates the Voting Rights Act Baker challenged the redistricting procedures (or lack thereof) for Tennessee’s state legislature The state’s rural areas were vastly over-represented; This was common in many states, especially in the South Baker’s argument was that the over-representation of rural areas in the state legislature denied the residents of his urban district the “equal protection of the laws” Precedent: Redistricting is a “political question”—not justiciable in the courts (Colegrove v. Green (1946)) Holding: Colegrove is overruled Two years later, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court defined the test for legislative districts: they must adhere to the principle of “ONE MAN, ONE VOTE” The Court’s opinion does not mention race; but how is this case related to the issue of minority voting rights?

The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act of 1965 Prohibited any voting procedures that denied a person the right to vote based on race Is this forbidding discriminatory purpose, or effects? Areas of the country with histories of discriminatory practices were subject to: Election monitoring by federal officials Requirement that they submit any new voting laws or requirements to a federal district court for approval 1982 Amendments Dealt with the under-representation of minorities in the federal and state governments Legislative districts must be drawn to avoid discriminatory results

Thornborough v. Gingles (1986) Court upholds the 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act Majority-minority districts must be drawn, if: 1) There are distinct racial groups present 2) Evidence of Racial Bloc Voting 3) Possible to draw Contiguous and Compact districts Big Question from this Case: Court interprets the 1982 Amendments to mandate a Disparate Impact Test. How can Congress do this under their Section 5 Powers of the 14th Amendment; if disparate impacts do Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause in Section 1?

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Challenge to two provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting Holding: Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs And therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states Section 5 is not overruled, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula Aftermath In the four years since the decision, several states that were previously covered under Section 5 have enacted restrictive voting laws, such as: Voter ID law; elimination of online registration and early voting; elimination of Sunday voting; elimination of same-day registration

Voting Rights Graphic Work

Homework Textbook, p. 156-166