Sued if you do, sued if you don't : Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a defense to race-conscious districting /
Saved in:
| Author / Creator: | Wong, Caroline A., author. |
|---|---|
| Imprint: | [Chicago, Illinois] : Law School, University of Chicago, 2015. |
| Description: | 1 online resource (55 pages) ; maps |
| Language: | English |
| Series: | Public law and legal theory working paper ; no. 535 Public law and legal theory working paper ; no. 535. |
| Subject: | |
| Format: | E-Resource Book |
| URL for this record: | http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/10362636 |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 i 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 10362636 | ||
| 003 | ICU | ||
| 005 | 20150924103447.6 | ||
| 006 | m o d | ||
| 007 | cr b|||||||||| | ||
| 008 | 150923s2015 ilub ob 000 0 eng c | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)921931213 | ||
| 040 | |a CGU |b eng |e rda |c CGU | ||
| 042 | |a pcc | ||
| 043 | |a n-us--- | ||
| 049 | |a CGUA | ||
| 050 | 4 | |a KF4893 |b .W66 2015 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Wong, Caroline A., |e author. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2015126884 |1 http://viaf.org/viaf/182144647700488902689 | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Sued if you do, sued if you don't : |b Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a defense to race-conscious districting / |c Caroline A. Wong. |
| 264 | 1 | |a [Chicago, Illinois] : |b Law School, University of Chicago, |c 2015. | |
| 300 | |a 1 online resource (55 pages) ; |b maps | ||
| 336 | |a text |b txt |2 rdacontent |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/contentTypes/txt | ||
| 337 | |a computer |b c |2 rdamedia |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mediaTypes/c | ||
| 338 | |a online resource |b cr |2 rdacarrier |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/cr | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Public law and legal theory working paper ; |v no. 535 | |
| 500 | |a "April 2015." | ||
| 504 | |a Includes bibliographical references. | ||
| 520 | |a "To avoid liability for vote dilution in violation of [Section] 2 of the Voting Rights Act, states officials sometimes engage in race-conscious remedial legislative districting. However, race-conscious remedial districting, while averting litigation over a [Section] 2 violation, simultaneously opens the door to a lawsuit in which an electoral district plan may be challenged as an unconstitutional racial classification under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A state that finds itself in potential violation of [Section] 2 is thus placed in a seemingly "impossible position." Whether it decides to forgo or pursue race-conscious remedial districting, the state leaves itself exposed to liability for violating either [Section] 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause, respectively. In an effort to resolve this predicament, a few states have responded to equal protection racial-gerrymandering challenges by arguing that compliance with [Section] 2 constitutes an affirmative defense against claims of race-conscious districting. Whether such a [Section] 2 defense is legally cognizable, however, is a question that remains unresolved. Both times that the issue of the defense's viability has been raised before the US Supreme Court, the justices have expressly declined to address it. As a result, state governments - as well as courts and districting-litigation plaintiffs - have been left without answers to critical questions about the extent to which [Section] 2 requires, justifies, or forbids the incorporation of race-conscious principles in the design of electoral districts. This Comment endeavors to address those questions. Part I canvasses the legislative history of [Section] 2 and overviews the doctrinal frameworks governing federal claims of vote dilution and racial gerrymandering. Part II examines the various attempts that states have made to raise the [Section] 2 defense in response to racial-gerrymandering and state-constitutional claims. Finally, Part III argues that [Section] 2 indeed offers a legally cognizable defense against claims of racial districting for doctrinal and normative reasons. It then envisages how courts could apply the [Section] 2 defense in a way that would benefit states raising the defense in good faith but filter out states merely seeking to evade liability for unjustifiable race-based action. In light of the defense's application in both the vote-dilution and racial-gerrymandering contexts, Part III also explains that states might avoid violations of both [Section] 2 and the Equal Protection Clause by creating racially integrated coalitional districts." | ||
| 588 | |a Title from online title page (viewed September 23, 2015). | ||
| 650 | 0 | |a African Americans |x Suffrage. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85001993 | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Apportionment (Election law) |z United States. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2007101203 | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Gerrymandering |z United States. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Proportional representation |z United States. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2010108654 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a African Americans |x Suffrage. |2 fast |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00799713 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Apportionment (Election law) |2 fast |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00811773 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Gerrymandering. |2 fast |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00942249 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Proportional representation. |2 fast |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01079244 | |
| 651 | 7 | |a United States. |2 fast |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01204155 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Public law and legal theory working paper ; |v no. 535. | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/public_law_and_legal_theory/551/ |
| 903 | |a HeVa | ||
| 929 | |a cat | ||
| 999 | f | f | |i 56e6fb42-50fe-54c7-8518-e2c31208417a |s 2c7b75f6-09a5-5e9b-a355-f2198eaf0996 |
| 928 | |t Library of Congress classification |a XXKF4893.W66 2015 |l Online |c UC-FullText |u http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/public_law_and_legal_theory/551/ |i 8535815 | ||