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

2. Unit 6 vocabulary quiz

3. Massive resistance: group readings and class discussion

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

5. 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?

6. Evolution of strict scrutiny

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. Racial Discrimination and Voting Rights

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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

16. Voting Rights Graphic Work

17. Homework
Textbook, p