Election Law

Front 1

Asking the question of whether the Supreme Court could reapprtion Illinois' districts, the Court held that it wasn't federal business to correct the situation; the people of the state had to remedy apportionment through constitutional revision or through the election process

Back 1

Colegrove v. Green ((overruled by Baker v. Carr))

Front 2

The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and is justiciable by the federal courts. (Just b/c it is a political issue does not make it a political question) This is a violation of the EPC by virtue of debasement of votes.

Back 2

Baker v. Carr

Front 3

A United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population (one Person, one vote). 2. The SC held that, as a basic constitutional standard, the EPC requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individuals’ right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the state

Back 3

Reynolds v. Sims

Front 4

The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a population bases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor under representations of one group or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional. The Court added that although a majority of the electorate approved its apportionment scheme, this cannot override even a single individual's constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote.

Back 4

Lucas v. The Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Front 5

The Court refused to assist African Americans in Alabama who were being systematically denied the right to vote by a scheme set up by the all-white state legislature. Although the ∏ accused the state of discriminating in practice against black citizens, the Court found that the requirements applied to all citizens and refused to undertake overseeing the state's process

Back 5

Giles v. Harris

Front 6

The Court developed a standard of equality for congressional districts that required them to be mathematically equal, unless justified by some “legitimate state objective.” SC invalidating a New Jersey congressional districting plan where the deviation b/w the largest & smallest districts was less than the Census' margin of error, when the state could offer no acceptable explanation for the differences.

Back 6

Karcher v. Daggett

Front 7

A Texas law prohibiting blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic Party primary violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a Direct and obvious infringement on the 14th (don’t need to consider the 15th). Color was the basis of this statutory classification, and blacks were not standing equal in primary elections before the laws of TX.

Back 7

Nixon v. Herndon

Front 8

Primary elections must be open to voters of all races. a landmark in the Court's support of civil rights, and in the development of the so-called public function concept. The public function concept holds that essentially public activities, such as elections, must be subject to constitutional scrutiny even if they are managed by private organizations or corporations

Back 8

Smith v. Allwright

Front 9

The political organization denied that their racial exclusions violated the Fifteenth Amendment, b/c it applied only to elections or primaries held under state regulation, that their association was not regulated by the state, and that it was not a political party but a self-governing voluntary club. But the Supreme Court held that the combined election machinery of the Association and the Democratic Party deprives petitioners of their right to vote on account of their race and color, contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment.

Back 9

Terry v. Adams

Front 10

Whether the Marion county district illegally minimizes and cancels out the voting power of a cognizable racial minority in Marion County. 1The Supreme Court was unprepared to hold that district-based elections decided by plurality vote are unconstitutional in either single- or multi-member districts simply b/c the supporters of losing candidates have no legislative seats assigned to them. 2. As presently advised, we hold that the District Court misconceived the Equal Protection Clause in applying it to invalidate the Marion County multi-member district.

Back 10

Whitcomb v. Chavis

Front 11

The District Court's order requiring disestablishment of the multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexar Counties was warranted in the light of the history of political discrimination against Negroes and Mexican-Americans residing, respectively, in those counties and the residual effects of such discrimination upon those groups. Multi-member districts CAN be unconstitutional is they are being used invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups.

Back 11

White v. Regester

Front 12

Whether an at-large system of municipal elections violates the rights of Mobile’s Negro voters in contravention of federal statutory or constitutional law. The Supreme Court held that the at-large election system did not discriminate against African American citizens, who could register and vote freely in Mobile.

Back 12

Mobile v. Bolden

Front 13

Affirm the DC’s decision to leave the State’s plan for FL state senators districts undisturbed. The totality of the circumstances appears not to support a finding of vote dilution here where both minority groups constitute effective voting majorities in a number of state Senate districts substantially proportional to their share in the population. b. There is no violation of §2 in SJR 2-G's House districts, where in spite of continuing discrimination and racial bloc voting, minority voters form effective voting majorities in a number of House districts roughly proportional to their respective shares in the voting age population. While such proportionality is not dispositive, it is a relevant fact in the totality of circumstances to be analyzed when determining whether minority voters have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice

Back 13

Johnson v. De Grandy

Front 14

∏s need not prove causation or intent in order to prove a prima facie case of racial bloc voting and the ∆s may not rebut that case with evidence of causation or intent.

Back 14

Thornburg v. Gingles

Front 15

The Court holds that a State covered by the Act must submit for federal approval all those laws that could arguably have an impact on Negro voting power, even though the manner in which the election is conducted remains unchanged.

Back 15

Allen v. State Bd. of Elections

Front 16

The court of appeals held that § 1973 did not require the city to maximize Latino voters’ ability to elect Latino candidates. b. §2 required an electoral process “equally open” to all, not a process that favored one group over another. c. The ∏s did not offer evidence of vote dilution; they failed to show that random generation of compact voting districts would have been likely to yield three “Latino effective” voting districts. d. The record suggested that the city’s Latino population was not concentrated enough to support three “Latino effective” districts w/o gerrymandering. Also, several wards contained enough Latino citizens to produce substantial influence, and “influence districts” were relevant to assessment of vote dilution. Therefore, the ∏s failed to establish a genuine issue for trial regarding the validity of the existing district map.

Back 16

Gonzalez v. City of Aurora

Front 17

The Etowah County Commission’s Common Fund Resolution is not a change w/in any of the categories recognized in Allen or our later cases. i. It has no connection to voting procedures: It does not affect the manner of holding elections, it alters or imposes no candidacy qualifications or requirements, and it leaves undisturbed the composition of the electorate. ii. It also has no bearing on the substance of voting power, for it does not increase or diminish the number of officials for whom the electorate may vote; Rather, the Common Fund Resolution concerns the internal operations of an elected body

Back 17

Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n

Front 18

Since § 5's language clearly provides that it applies only to proposed changes in voting procedures, and since the at-large seats existed w/o change since 1954, those seats were not subject to review under § 5. The District Court consequently erred in holding that the plan could be rejected under § 5 solely b/c it did not eliminate the two at-large seats.

Back 18

Beer v. United States

Front 19

This case was a huge blow against anti-discrimination suits. It estabished that discriminatory effects must be accompanied by intent. This case led to major congressional amendments to the VRA. This was a plurality...not just discriminatory effects, but discriminatory purpose. Mobile lead to major congressional amendments to the VRA.

Back 19

Mobile v. Bolden

Front 20

Reemergence of a “Totality of Circumstances” Approach

Back 20

Johnson v. De Grandy

Front 21

with its invalidation of the whites-only primary election procedure in Fort Bend County, Texas, marked the end of the southern white primary, an institution that kept blacks from voting during the first half of the twentieth century

Back 21

Terry v. Adams

Front 22

This is the political thicket case. Frankfurter reasoned that the obligation to fairly apportion Congressional
districts rested squarely with Congress since the Constitution specifed that \Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. . . "

Back 22

Colegrove v. Green ((overruled by Baker v. Carr))

Front 23

This was a group rights harm, not an individual rights harm...so it was not a typical EPC case. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr was a sharp departure from that Court's long-standing policy of judicial nonintervention in redistricting cases. This case upheld the justifiability of legislative . A reapportionment case is not foreclosed from judicial review if it is based on the equal protection clause rather then on the guaranty clause. 5. This re-apportionment increased the political power of urban centers and limited the influence of more rural, conservative interests that had benefited from the Supreme Court ruling injusticiable such "political" questions as those of apportionment.

Back 23

Baker v. Carr

Front 24

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." People in sparsely populated areas had their votes counted 2x, 5x, or 10x more then people in other parts of the state. Regardless of where you live, your vote should have the same weight.

Back 24

Reynolds v. Sims

Front 25

By making this case about individual rights, we take away referendums from people trying to stifle the black vote. Basically, you can't out your individual rights up for vote, constitutional rights are not up for vote for a group to decide to take away. This case was decided to protect the rights of the black individuals, otherwise a group can control an individual vote. The harm here that we are resolving is about their ability to aggregate and elect the people of their choice to represent their particular interest. Beware- one person one vote does not mean that you can’t elect at large. At large elections completely comply with one person one vote- its all one equipopulous district. Once you choose to subdivide, the districts has to be of equal population.

Back 25

Lucas v. The Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Front 26

After the 1980 census, got decreased from 15 to 14 members of Congress. The ideal pop was 526,059. The biggest v. smallest deviation was 3,674 people, or only .6984 %. 3. There was another plan available that was more equi-populus then the plan they used. Does the SC sign off on NJ’s plan which is less then 1% of overall deviation. --> NO! It is the race to ZERO! a. The first showing as a ∏ is to show that you can draw/show a better plan. THEN the burden shifts to the ∆, the State, they have to set forward the reasons why their plan, the State plan, has the deviations from the ideal populations that it does and it was done to achieve some kind of legitimate state objective. b. Once the state articulates the legitimate reasons for the population deviations, the ∏s come forward with the plan that meets all of the stated objectives of the sate and meets a more equal populous.

Back 26

Karcher v. Daggett

Front 27

This case is the black mark on the Supreme Court's record.

Back 27

Giles v. Harris

Front 28

How can a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Acts be proved?

Back 28

A violation of Section 2 of the VRA can be proved by showing a discriminatory effect alone, rather then having to show a discriminatory purpose.

Front 29

When is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Violated?

Back 29

Section 2 of the VRA is violated where the totality of the circumstances reveals that the political process leading to nomination or election are not equally open to participation by members of a protected class in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, and that the extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office is one circumstance that may be considered.

Front 30

What are the Three Concepts of Voting?

Back 30

Participation: going and physically casting a ballot (this is an individual level of participation)

Aggregation: Its groups of people that elect politicians

Governance: What good is it to vote if the legislature does not reflect what we want?

Front 31

What does Article 1 Guarantee?

Back 31

Article 1 guarantees the right to vote and have that vote effectively counted.

Front 32

How do we calculate compliance with one person, one vote?

Back 32

1. Ideal population
2. Deviation of Individual Districts
3. Overall range of deviation

Front 33

Why would a state want pleasing districts?

Back 33

a. States might want voter convenience. The way the district is shaped may play a part is where you cast your vote- voter convenience.
b.Common interest of communities- makes the congressman easier to service those districts; similar voters in similar areas.
c.It looks like there is no gerrymandering
d.Easier for constituents to figure out who represents them...jagged edges means, what? Who is in my district? My neighbor isn’t but the 5th house down is? That doesn’t make more sense?
e. Makes it easier to campaign for the politician

Front 34

What is the number 1 criteria when there is a redistricting plan?

Back 34

Legislatures know that they must achieve one person one vote because it is a race to zero.

Front 35

What are the main techniques of disenfranchisement? (White Primary Cases)

Back 35

1. Poll Taxes
2. Literacy Tests
3. Grandfather Clauses
4. Violence
5. Felon disenfranchisement

Front 36

What was the irony of one person, one vote?

Back 36

It stripped blacks of their voting rights.

Front 37

What are the Three Gingles Preconditions that a plaintiff must demonstrate for vote dilution?

Back 37

1. Compactness

2. Minority Cohesion or bloc voting

3. Majority Bloc Voting

**after these Preconditions the court then looks at a totality of the circumstances and the Senate Factors. But you must prove the preconditions first.

Front 38

What does the phrase "vote dilution" refer to?

Back 38

Vote dilution refers to the impermissible discriminatory effect that a multimember or other districting plan has when it operates to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups.

Front 39

What are the Senate Factors that come out of the Senate Report legislative history for the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendment?

Back 39

1. History of discrimination related to voting-

2. Racially polarized Voting.

3. Enhancing devices- how the State has used voting practices or procedures that end to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against a minority group (majority vote requirements, big election districts, anti-single shot voting, bullet voting)

4. Lack of responsiveness of elected officials to minority needs

5. Exclusion of minority members from the slating process

6. Minority past discrimination from the slating process

7. How many minorities were elected before?

Front 40

What must a bloc vote normally do to be considered a bloc vote?

Back 40

A Bloc Vote must usually be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group.

Front 41

What are some examples of the voting practices that Section 2 covers?

Back 41

a. Ex: location of polling places (can bring a §2 challenge)
b. Ex: Felon disenfranchisement laws: can bring a §2 violation for this. Can have a disparate impact on minority challenges.
c. Ex: Voter Registration locations
d. But vast majority of cases deal with vote dilution, not with things that go more toward participating

The §2 results test can be applied against any voting practice that is out there!!!!



VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

Reaffirmation or Requiem for the Voting Rights Act?

Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union
Section 2

Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide provision that prohibits the use of voting laws, practices or procedures that discriminate in either purpose or effect on the basis of race, color, or membership in a minority language group. All types of voting practices and procedures are covered by Section 2, including those relating to registration, voting, candidacy qualification, and types of election systems.

Front 42

How does the Voting Rights Act work against discrimination?

Back 42

Section 2 of the Act makes it illegal for any state or local government to use election processes or procedures that give voters who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice to public office. Suits can be brought under Section 2 by either the Justice Department or a private citizen.

Front 43

What is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

Back 43

Section 5 of the Act requires certain state and local governments to get federal approval (known as "preclearance") prior to implementing any changes to their voting procedures -- anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in the county.

Under Section 5, a covered state, county or local government entity must demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question does not have the purpose or effect of making minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change (i.e., that the change will not be "retrogressive").

Front 44

What is the Justice Department's role under Section 5?

Back 44

Under Section 5, covered jurisdictions cannot enforce voting changes until they obtain approval ("preclearance") either from the federal district court in Washington, D.C. or from the U.S. Attorney General.

Front 45

Is the Attorney General's determination the end of the process?

Back 45

Not always. If the Attorney General objects to a submitted change (thus blocking its implementation) the jurisdiction can still file a declaratory judgment action with the federal district court in D.C. requesting approval for the change.

Also, if the Attorney General preclears the change, the Justice Department or a private party can still go to court to challenge the change under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a racially discriminatory voting procedure.

Front 46

Can individuals have their views considered in the Section 5 review process?

Back 46

Yes. Anyone can write to the Attorney General or call the Voting Section with a comment for or against preclearance while the submission is pending. You don't need a lawyer or any special qualifications.

Front 47

The vote dilution challenge to the size of the commission under § 2 was unpersuasive b/c, under § 2, courts lack “a reasonable alternative practice” to use as a benchmark for evaluating the single‐member structure

Back 47

Holder v. Hall

Front 48

What does Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act require?

Back 48

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain state and local governments to submit changes in their voting practices to the federal government for approval prior to implementation (i.e., preclearance) so that the federal government can ensure no voting changes that discriminate against minority voters ever get implemented.

Front 49

What are the groups traditionally protected by the Voting Rights Act?

Back 49

Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans.

Front 50

The Court held that there was no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. It also held that inflated voter rolls provided a neutral and nondiscriminatory reason supporting the State's decision to require photo identification. While closely related to the State's interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process had independent significance, because it encouraged citizen participation in the democratic process. These interests were sufficient to outweigh the limited burden on voters' rights.

Back 50

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Front 51

Where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.

Back 51

Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No 15

Front 52

15th amendment case; A State may, consistently with the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, apply a literacy test to all voters irrespective of race or color; rational basis review (1959)

Back 52

Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections

Front 53

What case states that a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. The term "invidiously discriminate" has been used to describe conduct prohibited under that standard.

Back 53

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

Front 54

A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Back 54

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

Front 55

Gerrymandering claims present a non-justiciable question, as there are no judicially manageable standards available to resolve gerrymandering questions. In a split decision that had no majority opinion, the Court decided not to intervene in this case because no appropriate judicial solution could be found.

Back 55

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Front 56

In this case, the Court refused to interpret Section 5 of the VRA in a way that would allow the Attorney General to compel state and local governments to create additional single member districts that would provide descriptive representation

Back 56

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Front 57

What is the tradition reason for vote dilution?

Back 57

By traditional he means to connote vote dilution litigation attacking at-large and multi-member electoral structures that serve to completely lock-out the strongly held preferences of minority voters.

Front 58

Which case served as a notice that the Court would not stand as a barrier to the mass disfranchisement of blacks in the Deep South?

Back 58

Giles v. Harris

Front 59

Why was the 1965 VRA Act written in the way it was?

Back 59

It was written in that way because it wanted to prevent recalcitrant state and local government actors from engaging in the hydraulic activity of switching to new methods of discrimination after old discriminatory methods had been proscribed.

Front 60

Which plurality of the Court reinterpreted White as requiring a federal court to make an explicit finding that a challenged electoral structure was intentionally discriminatory?

Back 60

Mobile v. Bolden; this case made it tougher to prove discriminatory purpose by appearing to require plaintiffs to require something akin to a direct smoking-gun evidence of racial or ethnic purpose.

Front 61

What are the Senate Factors from Congress' Section 2 VRA re-write to help prove totality of the circumstances?

Back 61

(1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process
(2) The extent to which voting in elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized
(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;
(4) I there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;
(5) whether the members of the minority group bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process
(6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals
(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in that jurisdiction
(8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of a minority group
(9) whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivison's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure is tenous

Front 62

Which case noted that where racial bloc voting occurs is to be expected to find other incidents of social bias.

Back 62

Johnson v. DeGrandy

Front 63

Which case held that a voting change has a discriminatory effect whenever its implementation would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise

Back 63

Beer v. United States

Front 64

in Which case did the Court refuse to move beyond the friendly, established confines of the Voting Rights Act in participatory and aggregation aspects of democracy and embrace a governance conception of the right to vote, a conception that would have moved the voting rights inquiry into the manner in which legislative bodies actually govern.

Back 64

Presley v. Etowah County Commission

Front 65

In which case did the bizzare shape of the district show that the State's redistricting plan facially classified voters on the basis of race, and resulted in a violation of the EPC as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander?

Back 65

Shaw v. Reno

Front 66

Which case shows that the Voting Rights Act does not require that each and every safe district that could be drawn be drawn?

Back 66

Shaw v. Reno

Front 67

Which case held that no violation of Section 2 could be found where, in spite of continuing discrimination and racial bloc voting, minority voters form effective voting majorities in a number of districts roughly proportional to the minority voter's respective shares in the voting age population?

Back 67

Johnson v. DeGrandy

Front 68

Which case was a challenge to the Florida State legislative redistricting, whether a lower court had correctly decided that Section 2 required more safe districts to be drawn when minority voters already enjoyed rough proportional representation?

Back 68

Johnson v. DeGrandy

Front 69

In which case was the totality of the circumstances taken more seriously?

Back 69

Johnson v. DeGrandy

Front 70

In which case did the Supreme Court expressly reject the idea that anything short of the maximum number of majority-minority districts consistent with the Gingles conditions would violate Section 2?

Back 70

Johnson v. DeGrandy

Front 71

Which case indicated that Section 2 was constitutional and that Section 2 can play a role in preserving existing electoral opportunities for minority voters?

Back 71

LULAC; League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

Front 72

If this was eliminated in its entirety, could minority voters still maintain past gains?

Back 72

Section 5

Front 73

What is the procedural and substantive aspects of Section 5?

Back 73

The procedural aspect of Section 5 is the mechanical requirement that voting changes be submitted to the federal government for approval. The substantive aspect of Section 5 is the acual determination by federal officials either the Attorney General or judges on the D.C. District Court as to whether the change is discriminatory.

Front 74

In which case did the Court note that it was its Congress' intent in passing Section 5 to reach any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way?

Back 74

Allen v. State Bd. of Education

Front 75

This case held that the change had no connection to voting procedures. It did not affect the manner of holding elections, it alters or imposes no candidacy qualifications or requirements, and leaves undisturbed the composition of the electorate. This only concerns the internal operations of the elected body.

Back 75

Presley v. Etowah County Commission

Front 76

In this case, the court denied using Section 5 because under the view advanced by the appellants, every time a state legislature acted to diminish or increase power of local officials, preclearance would have been required. Changes which affect only the distribution of power among officials are not subject to Section 5 because such changes have no direct relation to voting. Changes in voting only, not governance.

Back 76

Presley v. Etowah County Commission

Front 77

Who has the burden of proof in a Section 5 case?

Back 77

The covered jurisdiction has the burden of proof that a practice has neither a discriminatory purpose or a discriminatory effect. It is a totality of the circumstances analysis. Are the minorities worse off or better off?

Front 78

This case held that preclearance under Section 5 may not be denied solely on the basis that a covered jurisdiction's new voting standard, practice, or procedure violates Section 2.

Back 78

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Front 79

What is the principle that holds that government may extend protection beyond what the Constitution requires, but it cannot retreat from the extension once made?

Back 79

Non-Retrogression.

Front 80

What does Retrogression require?

Back 80

Retrogresion requires a comparison of a jurisdiction's new voting plan with its existing plan and necessarily implies that the jurisdiction's existing plan is the bench mark against which the effect of voting changes is measured.

Front 81

In a covered jurisdiction, do all voting changes have to be precleared?

Back 81

Yes; just because a change doesn't discriminate does not mean it doesn't have to be submitted to the federal government.

Front 82

In which case was it the first time that the court got involved in a statutory way with the concept of aggregation directly?

Back 82

Allen v. State Bd. of Educ.

Front 83

Who is the plaintiff in Section 5 Enforcement actions?

Back 83

Private citizens and occassionally the U.S. AG office, against a local jurisdiction that has made a change and hasn't gotten federal approval for the change.

Front 84

Who is the Defendant in a Section 5 enforcement action?

Back 84

The covered jurisdiction that is seeking the implement that change.

Front 85

Where are Section 5 cases filed?

Back 85

A local federal district court or occasionally state court.

Front 86

Who has the burden of proof in a Section 5 enforcement action?

Back 86

The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the practice involves an unpreclearance with respect to voting.

Front 87

What do private plaintiffs need in order to get an injunction against implementation of a voting change?

Back 87

Private plaintiffs have to prove that a change occurred, that the change is covered by Section 5, and that the change has not been approved by the federal government.

Front 88

In this case, Mississippi switched from single member districts to at-large district and electing to appointing officials.

Back 88

Allen v. State Bd. of Educ.

Front 89

In this case, the D.C. District Court denied declaratory judgment of a Section 5 Plan because the state had not achieved proportional representation. But the Supreme Court decided differently, finding that the proposed changes to voting procedures existed since 1954 and those seats were not subject to review under Section 5.

Back 89

Beer v. United States

Front 90

What case decided that preclearance under Section 5 may not be denied solely on the basis that a covered jurisdiction's new voting standard, practice, or procedure violates Section 2.

Back 90

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Front 91

This case took away the ability to use Section 5 to force jurisdictions to create more and more majority-minority districts in the way that Section 2 operates.

Back 91

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Front 92

This is the intentional design of election districts to achieve a particular result.

Back 92

Gerrymandering

Front 93

What are two types of gerrymandering?

Back 93

Racial and Partisan.

Front 94

Are Gerrymandering claims statutory or constitutional?

Back 94

Constitutional

Front 95

What was the big concern that the Supreme Court had with the Department of Justice in regards to Section 5?

Back 95

The big picture backdrop of Section 5 was a federalism concern on the part of several members of the Supreme Court; they don't like in terms of racial gerrymandering the idea that the federal government is compelling state and local governments to draw more and more minority districts, so it is an exercise of authority over the states. Concern over federal exercise of power.

Front 96

What does every state have to do after the dicentennial census?

Back 96

Redistrict to comply with one person, one vote.

Front 97

What are some traditional districting criteria?

Back 97

Is the District: Compact, contiguous, does it respect political subdivisions

Front 98

This is not a dilution claim, but a claim that a district was intentionally designed to exclude certain voters

Back 98

The Racial Gerrymandering Doctrine

Front 99

What is the Doctrine of Racial Gerrymandering?

Back 99

In this doctrine, race has to be the predominant factor in the drawing of the district. If race is the predominant factor, then strict scrutiny is applied. Strict scrutiny means the government must show a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring. Almost always a district is going to go down if it is subjected to strict scrutiny.

Front 100

In what case does the court back away from a state saying that the compelling reason for drawing racially gerrymandered districts was because of compliance with Section 2 or 5? The court says that these districts were not required by the VRA because there was no retrogression, no discriminatory purpose, and no reason to draw these districts under Section 5 and Section 2 does not require bizarre shaped districts.

Back 100

Shaw v. Reno

Front 101

In some exceptional cases, O'Connor says, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race.

Back 101

Shaw v. Reno

Front 102

This case stated that if an area is based on race, it reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group, regardless of their age, education, or economic status, think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates.

Back 102

Shaw v. Reno

Front 103

Which Justice does not want the Supreme Court to engage in race based districting and doesn't want the federal government to engage in race based districting because vote dilution claims brings race right into the mix of it.

Back 103

Justice Thomas

Front 104

This case was all about incumbancy protection and not racial gerrymandering and the District Court was clearly erroneous believing that race was the predominant factor for drawing these districting lines.

Back 104

Easley v. Cromartie

Front 105

What are the two types of partisan gerrymandering?

Back 105

Bipartisan: lets protect every single incumbent on either side.

or

Screw the other side, and let's elect as many people as possible.

Front 106

How many people won partisan gerrymandering claims after Davis v. Bandemer?

Back 106

None.

Front 107

In a four-member plurality, the Supreme Court held that the Court should declare all claims related to political but not racial gerrymandering nonjusticaible, meaning that court could not hear them. Because no court had been able to find an appropriate remedy to political gerrymandering, it was time to recognize that the solution simply did not exist.

Back 107

Veith v. Jubelirer

Front 108

This case overturned Davis v. Bandemer

Back 108

Veith v. Jubelirer

Front 109

This case said that there is a constitutional obligation to refrain from racial gerrymandering.

Back 109

Veith v. Jubelirer

Front 110

Souter's dissent in this case proposed a five-prong test that would allow a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.

Back 110

Veith v. Jubelirer

Front 111

This case held that where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. The statute here does not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision to justify denying the franchise to appellant and members of his class since the classifications include many persons at best only remotely interested in school affairs, and exclude others directly interested.

Back 111

Kramer v. Union Free School District

Front 112

What level of scrutiny and what amendment was Kramer v. Union Free School District decided under?

Back 112

Strict Scrutiny and the EPC of the 14th amendment

Front 113

What level of scrutiny and what amendment was Harper v. VA State Board of Elections decided under?

Back 113

Something close to strict scrutiny and the EPC of the 14th amendment

Front 114

What level of scrutiny was Lassiter v. Northampton Cty Board of Elections decided under and what amendment?

Back 114

Rational Basis Review and the 15th Amendment.

Front 115

Which amendment eliminated the poll tax in federal elections, and what year was that in?

Back 115

24th amendment in 1964.

Front 116

Why was strict scrutiny used in Kramer v. Union Free School District?

Back 116

Because voting is a fundamental right

Front 117

This case did not want to apply strict scrutiny because in doing so that would mean that every time a state designs a system a person can come up with someone that is harmed by that system saying that it is underinclusive or overinclusive; this means that almost all voting requirements would go down.

Back 117

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Front 118

What were the challenges in LULAC?

Back 118

Section 2 challenge, partisan gerrymandering, Equal Protection Clause

Front 119

Which Justice in LULAC said that Section 2 should not be used as a tool for vote dilution, but would consider a racially discriminatory unconstitutional purpose in drawing the plan. When a legislature intentionally creates a majority-minority district, race is necessarily its predominant motivation and strict scrutiny is therefore triggered. He also believes that Section 5 is a compelling state interest to draw racially gerrymandered lines. It is a racial gerrymander but it withstands strict scrutiny.

Back 119

Justice Scalia

Front 120

This Justice was unhappy with the decision in LULAC and believed that the majority got it wrong with District 25...he is not sure what harm is being addressed and it was not really dilution because Latinos had the same number of districts as before and the SC should not be able to determine what mixes of Latinos are violations of Section 2.

Back 120

Justice Roberts

Front 121

This Justice in LULAC thought the redistricting looked like intentional discrimination and incumbency is not a legitimate protection. He rejected the Equal Protection claim, but found a Section 2 violation because it was intentional discrimination.

Back 121

Justice Kennedy

Front 122

This was the case with the single commissioner form of government. One person runs the county. The county is all one distrcit and functions as a single member district in and of itself.

Back 122

Holder v. Hall

Front 123

This Justice said, "In construing the Act to cover claims of vote dilution, we have converted the Act into a device for regulating, rationing, and apportioning political power among racial and ethnic groups. In the process, we have read the Act essentially as a grant of authority to the federal judiciary to develop theories on basic principles of representative government, for it is only a resort to political theory that can enable a court to determine which electoral systems provide the "fairest" levels of representation or the most "effective" or "undiluted" votes to minorities"

Back 123

Justice Thomas

Front 124

Who comprised the special electoral edition?

Back 124

5 Senators, 5 Representatives, and 5 Supreme Court Justices

Front 125

During the Election of 1876, what did the Dems want?

Back 125

The Democrats wanted the House to control. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, Article II of the constitution charges the House of Reps with electing the President, Providing that the votes shall be taken by States

Front 126

During the Election of 1876, what did the Republicans want?

Back 126

The Republicans wanted ARticle 12 to control. This amendment allows the Senate PResident to count the votes

Front 127

this case was a watershed case and started the Supreme Court down the road into more intervention into the political process.

Back 127

Baker v. Carr

Front 128

This Justice thought that Tennessee
s apportionment was a crazy quilt because the numbers of people in districts was irrational and it happened through legislative inaction.

Back 128

Justice Clark in Baker v. Carr

Front 129

In this case, it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause by virtue of their debasement of votes. This was about denial of equal protection, not the administration of affairs.

Back 129

Baker v. Carr

Front 130

This case held that both houses of a bicameral state legislature had to been apportioned on a population basis

Back 130

Reynolds v. Sims

Front 131

Each citizen must have an equally effective voice in the election of members of his state legislature.

Back 131

Chief Justice Warren

Front 132

What is the problem if we let voters decide the voting system?

Back 132

Though the voters should have the right to be a part of the system, think of Lucas and how they tried to put their individual rights up for vote. Voters could systematically deny groups rights.

Front 133

What are the costs of equality in the race to zero?

Back 133

1. The Justices are telling the states how to act.

2. the high cost of litigation

3. throwing the judicial system into the political thickett

4. Know the partisan affiliation of judges

5. Undermine judicial legitimacy possibly

6. Aren't numbers always changing and people always moving?

Front 134

Why do legislators draw redistricting maps the way that they do?

Back 134

The political process is a mess. With a redistricting map, you cannot divorce yourself from the political implications of that map. Lines are not drawn randomly, they are drawn by incumbent politicians wants to stay in office.

Front 135

When it comes to congressional districts, what did one person one vote become?

Back 135

It became an invitation to sue if the districts aren't perfectly equal.

Front 136

What is the big difference between State and Local and Federal Congressional Distrcits with equi-populus?

Back 136

States do not have to justify their discrepencies and they can have a population deviation under 10%. A plan with a large disparity in population, however, creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the state. The ultimate inquiry is w ether the legislatures plan may reasonably be said to advance a rational state policy and, if so, whether the population disparities among the districts that have resulted from the pursuit of this plan exceed constitutional limits.

Front 137

This case held that protecting the incumbency of Democrats and not Republicans was not a legitimate state interest even though the deviation was only 9.9%

Back 137

Larios v. Cox

Front 138

This amendment said the rights of the United State to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the US or any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Back 138

15th

Front 139

This Texas Statute said that regarding primary elections, that in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the state of TX; the Court said this was an obvious 14th amendment violation because the statute was discriminatory on its face.

Back 139

Nixon v. Herdnon

Front 140

Which case upheld the Texas White Primary, only to then be overturnd by Smith v. Allwright?

Back 140

Grovey v. Townsend

Front 141

Why did Smith v. Allwright use the 15th amendment in its decision?

Back 141

Because using the 15th amendment lets you touch upon both private and state organizations; the 15th amendment applies to voting specifically and the 14h applies to everything the government does.

Front 142

This case held that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate primary as well as general elections, where the primary is by law made an integral part of the election machinery.

Back 142

U.S. v. Classic

Front 143

This case held that when a state grants a private party the privilege to select the nominees to a general state elections, the state makes the action of the private party an action of the state.

Back 143

Smith v. Allwright

Front 144

What happens if you attack a legislative plan, meaning how does it go through the judicial system?

Back 144

You get a 3 court panel when you attack a legislative plan with an automatic appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

Front 145

In Whitcomb v. Chavis, what Justice White say this case is about?

Back 145

Politics, not race! No one was denied the right to vote or participate, it was merely a democratic defeat at the polls. There is no indications blacks were being denied access to the political system, they were merely just being defeated at the polls.

Front 146

Which three early vote dilution cases were decided under the 14th amendment and not Section 2?

Back 146

White v. Regester, Whitcomb v. Chavis, Mobile v. Bolden

Front 147

Name three types of enhancing devices

Back 147

Anti-Single shot provisions, Majority Vote Requirement, and Numbered Places

Front 148

What is something that a minority must have for a single member district?

Back 148

To have a single member district you need to have a relatively cohesive group and live in the same area. If you are spread out all over the place you couldn't put together a single member district that would work.

Front 149

Don't forget that the success of a minority candidates is a factor and...

Back 149

it also depends on how much competition the state has. So if there is lots of competition between Dems and Repubs, it may not be a factor. But if it is the one party south, minorities will never will because the majority will almost always will bloc their votes.

Front 150

What do you need in order to have vote dilution?

Back 150

Racially polarized voting.

Front 151

In this case, Justice Steward was concerned about proportionality because there are too many groups and not everyone can be represented. Also, in this case there was no participatory hindrance to voting.

Back 151

Mobile v. Bolden

Front 152

The plurality Court in this case rejected the idea that discriminatory effects were enough to establish that an action was in violation of the 14th or 15th amendment . Instead, the highly divided court asserted that discriminatory purpose must be proved for an action to be judged unconstitutional.

Back 152

Mobile v. Bolden

Front 153

What was Congress's purpose in amending Section 2 of the VRA?

Back 153

It was to prohibit voting practices or procedures that resulted in the denial of equal electoral opportunity, regardless of the intent behind the enactment or maintenance of the challenged system. The 1982 amendments squarely decoupled the statutory standard under Section 2 from the constitutional standard under the 14th and 15th amendment by rejecting the requirement that plaintiffs show a discriminatory purpose.

Front 154

What are the Senate Factors?

Back 154

Main Factors:

History of discrimination related to voting.
Racially polarized voting.
Enhancing devices (unusually large election districts; anti-single shot provisions; majority vote requirements, etc.).
Access (or lack thereof) of minority candidates to the slating process.
History of discrimination in other areas of life (education, employment, health) and current socio-economic status.
Racial appeals in campaigns.
The extent to which minority group members have been elected to office.

Additional Factors:

Lack of responsiveness on part of elected officials.
Whether state has a good reason for using the voting practice at issue.

Front 155

In Gingles, what was it that the Court got rid of to discriminatory purpose?

Back 155

It looks like you are pushing racism and calling people racists.

Front 156

What are two ways that you can minimize the voting ability of minority voters to elect candidates to control the outcome of single member districts?

Back 156

Packing and Cracking

Front 157

What is Balkanization and who used that term?

Back 157

Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller; To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units. Justice Thomas.

Front 158

This Justice said that the current interpretation of Section 2 is a disasterous misadventure in judicial policymaking that has permitted courts to decide questions of political theory by favoring single member districts that separate voters by race and thus heighten racial tensions.

Back 158

Justice Thomas in Holder v. Hall

Front 159

Is the form of governance a violation of Section 2?

Back 159

No, only standards, practices, and procedures are

Front 160

What is a caveat with the covered jurisdictions with regard to date?

Back 160

Section 5 of the act provides that a jurisdiction must seek preclearance whenever it shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on the date the jurisdictions became covered.

It has to be on THE DATE the jurisdiction became covered. So of something has been in place forever, and nothing has changed with respect to that standard or practice, you can't challenge it for Section 5 purposes. Now if you change it after the date it is subject to Section 5, but if it hasn't changed it isn't subject.

Front 161

Which Justice in Vieth stated that that the issue is not whether severe partisan gerrymandering violates the constitution, but whether it is for the courts to say when a violation has occurred and to design a remedy. Thinks it is a failure of judicial will, not the unavailability of judicially manageable standards.

Back 161

Justice Steven's Dissent.

Front 162

Which Justice in Vieth proposed a 5 prong test that would allow a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering?

Back 162

Justice Souter

Front 163

This Dissent in Vieth believes that the court should be able to design a remedy for extreme political gerrymandering.

Back 163

Justice Breyer

Front 164

When were literacy tests at the poll place banned nationwide?

Back 164

1970.

Front 165

A facial challenge must fail where the statute has a plainly legitimate sweep. If a nondiscriminatory law is supported by a valid neutral justification, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.

Back 165

Justice Stevens in Crawford