VRA Flashcards
Section 5 Preclearance
Centerpiece of the VRA, required specified jurisdictions obtain federal approval, either from the DOJ or a special District court, before making any changes in their laws governing voting. Recently held in Shelby County v. Holder to be unconstitutional.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)
A challenge to the VRA ban on states using a “test or device” to deny the right to votes. Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting. The 15th amendment supersedes contrary exertions of state power. The statute must be reasonable and a close fit for the problem.
Section 5 Test
Section 5 applies to any state or district which: used a test or device and had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. Section 4(b) prevents the issuing of any literacy, interpretive, or good moral character tests.
Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969)
Combined action of 4 states challenging if their new schemes are subject to section 5 preclearance, Miss. specifically claiming it only covers enactments which prescribe who may register to vote. Court rejects Miss. contention, says Congress intended to cast a wide net here covering things like vote dilution via change in representative infrastructure (ala Reynolds v. Sims).
Beer v. United States (1976)
NOLA redraws so that one district with primarily Black residents on have 50% of the registered voters and the other 4 districts have a white majority. AG rejected this apportionment plan on vote dilution grounds but NOLA countered with a plan that created a slight Black majority in two districts, AG rejects that as well. Stewart majority finds that because section 5 was not intended to apply to scheme that existed before it was enacted
its purpose is to prevent retrogression of Black voters. Thus, because this plan is a % increase over the previous plan, it does not violate Section 5.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Challenge to Section 5 preclearance in general, alleges voter discrimination no longer exists. Plurality finds that a fundamental departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that the statutes geographical coverage is sufficiently related to the problem it targets. Says the framers intended states to regulate elections, not superseded by supremacy clause because its specifically mentioned. The VRA also violates constitutional principle of equality among states by only applying to 9 of them. Neither of the above is still justified because things are quite so racist anymore (uses evidence of registration parity and the presence of some Black elected officials)
Zimmer Factors for MMD acceptability under VRA
o Lack of access to proper slating of candidates
o Unresponsiveness of state legislature to minority interests
o Tenuous state policy underlying preference for MMD
o Existence of past discrimination in general
City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
Mobile has had a city commission since 1911,elected by voters at large. Stewart finds invidious discriminatory purpose is required to be shown to prove a denial of equal protections in a MMD and for current purposes, the at large system in Mobile is the same as MMD. Stewart focuses only on voting and registration, not on the outcomes of the elections and says that the Zimmer factors aren’t proved here.
1982 Amendments and the Section 2 Results Test
A violation is shown is “based on the totality of circumstances” it is shown that processes are “not equally open to participation by subsection (a)” “In that its members have less opportunity to participate or elect representatives of their choice.” Allows for consideration for lack of elected officials, but explicitly states no entitlement to proportional representation
Factors that could prove a violation under Section 2 Standard
Extent of history of official discrimination
Extent of racial polarization in voting
Extent of unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot measures
Denial to slating process
Extent to which a group bears effects of discrimination that hinder their ability to participate (education, employment, health)
Political campaigns based on overt or subtle racial appeals
Extent of election of minorities to official capacity
Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
Challenge by Black voters in North Dakota to the 1982 General Assembly redistricting plan, claiming sufficiently large and contiguous block communities to constitute a majority in SMD with in MMD. Plurality finds that minority voters who contend that the MMD form of districting violates section 2 must prove that the use of a MMD electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates. A bloc voting majority must usually be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group. The Degree of bloc voting that is substantial: Requires a discrete inquiry into minority and white voting practices, the amount of white voting required to cancel out is variable from district to districts and more leniency to bloc voting that can be shown to be a pattern over time.
Gingles Factors
Minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a single member district (census data as evidence)
Political cohesion of the minority group(exit poll as evidence)
Majority bloc can usually beat the minority bloc
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements (1994)
5th Circuit en banc decision with cert denied by SCOTUS. Texas elects judges in county wide election, encompassing all trial court in general jurisdiction of that county, even though candidates run for a particular court and not county court. At issue here is the white voting bloc inquiry from Gingles, with defendants contending the district court refused to consider other reasons for candidate preference. Court says you have to prove the significance of racial bloc voting. Court lacks the tools to say results are discriminatory based on color
Goosby v. Town of Hempstead (2nd Cir 1999)
Concerns a challenge to at large election of town council members, with Republicans winning ever seat since 1907. Court found that the argument of Black voters lost because they are democrats sucked because Black voters could not have representative candidates under Republican party and they should not be forced to vote Republican as that is not representative of their preferred candidates.
