Election Law Isaachroff Text Outline

L AW OF D EMOCRACY Outline i A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 An Introduction to the Selection of Democratic Institutions (pp. 1-15) ...................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Lucas v. The Forty-Fourth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 (1964) (pp. 3-15) ................................................................................................................................. 1 Alternative Democratic Structures (pp. 1089-99) ........................................................ 2 Reflections on Current System ................................................................................ 2 Duverger’s Law, Duverger’s Hypthesis ................................................................... 2 Types of Electoral Systems ...................................................................................... 2 B. Defining the Right to Participate ..................................................................................... 4 The Right to Participate – Background Norms ................................................................ 4 Introduction to the Right to Participate (pp. 16-20) ..................................................... 4 The Constitution and the Early History of Enfranchisement in the US ................... 4 Constitutional Text (pp. 20-46) .................................................................................... 4 Introduction to the Constitutional Text .................................................................... 4 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) (pp. 21-37) .............................................. 4 Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) (pp. 38-46) ......................................... 6 Class Comments on Richardson ............................................................................... 7 Individual Rights .............................................................................................................. 7 The Modern Constitutional Framework (pp. 46-72) .................................................... 7 Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959) (pp. 46- 48) ............................................................................................................................ 7 Class Comments on Lassiter .................................................................................... 8 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (pp. 48-52) ................ 8 Class Comments on Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections – Introduction to the Modern Era ........... 8 Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) (pp. 52-58) .... 8 Class Comments on Kramer .................................................................................... 9 Notes and Questions on the Modern Constitutional Framework (Different Categories: Citizenship, Age, Residency, Homeless, Overseas, Special vs. General Elections) ............... 9 The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement ....................................................................... 11 Introduction to the Struggle for Black Enfranchisement (pp. 90-101) ...................... 11 Early History of Black Enfranchisement ................................................................ 11 Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) (pp. 91-93) ................................................... 12 Class Comments on Giles ...................................................................................... 13 Techniques for Outright Disenfranchisement (pp. 101-102) ..................................... 13 History and Methods of Disenfranchisement of African-Americans .................... 13 The White Primary Cases (pp. 103-117) .................................................................... 14 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) (pp. 103-104) ......................................... 14 Class Comments on White Primary Cases – Nixon v. Herndon ............................ 14 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (US 1944) (pp. 105-108) .................................. 15 Comments on White Primary Cases – Smith v. Allwright ..................................... 15 Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (pp. 108-114) ............................................. 15 Class Comments on White Primary Cases – Terry v. Adams ................................ 16

The Demise of Discretion (pp. 117-124) ................................................................... 17 Problems with Unfettered Discretion ..................................................................... 17 The Alabama Literacy Test (pp. 120-124) ............................................................. 17 Redrawing District Boundaries (pp. 125-129) ........................................................... 17 Introduction to Redrawing District Boundaries ..................................................... 17 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) (pp. 125-129) .................................. 17 Class Comments on Gomillion v. Lightfoot ........................................................... 18 Voter Registration and Participation ............................................................................... 18 Voter Registration and Participation (pp. 129-140) ................................................... 18 Current State of American Voter Registration and Participation ........................... 18 France Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Why Americans Don’t Vote (1989) (pp. 130-135) ................................................................................................................. 18 Notes and Questions on Voter Registration and Participation ............................... 19 C. The Reapportionment Revolution ................................................................................. 20 Reapportionment – Casting a Meaningful Vote ............................................................. 20 Introduction to Reapportionment (p. 141) ................................................................. 20 Ensuring a Meaningful Relationship between Voting and Democracy .................. 20 The Political Thicket (pp. 142-184) ........................................................................... 20 Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (pp. 142-147) ....................................... 20 Class Discussion on Colegrove v. Green ............................................................... 20 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (pp. 147-162) ................................................. 21 Class Discussion on Baker v. Carr ......................................................................... 22 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1946) (pp. 162-177) .......................................... 23 Class Discussion of Reynolds v. Sims ................................................................... 25 Class Discussion of Wesberry ................................................................................ 25 Pros and Cons of One-Person/One-Vote ................................................................ 26 Karcher v. Dagget, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (pp. 177-185) ......................................... 26 Class Discussion on Karcher .................................................................................. 27 Wrap-Up Discussion on The Reapportionment Revolution – The Political Thicket ................................................................................................................................ 28 Issacharoff Summary on the Reapportionment Cases ............................................ 28 The Senate, Republic Theory, and Interest Representation ........................................ 28 Discussion on Gray v. Sanders ............................................................................... 28 Local Governance (pp. 185-208) ............................................................................... 29 Introduction to Local Governance ......................................................................... 29 Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) (pp. 187-192) ......................... 29 Class Discussion on Board of Estimates v. Morris ................................................ 29 Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981) (pp. 192-204) ................................................. 29 Class Discussion on Ball v. James ......................................................................... 30 Fumalaro v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill. 2d 54 (1990) (pp. 204-208) .... 30 Class Discussion on Fumalaro v. Chicago Board of Education ............................. 30 D. When Elections Go Bad: The 2000 Presidential Election in Legal Context ................. 32 Introduction to Problems with Elections and Judicial Oversight ................................... 32 Introduction (pp. 217-221) ......................................................................................... 32 Problems with Elections ......................................................................................... 32 Issacharoff’s Introduction to Bush v. Gore ............................................................ 32

Difficulties in Regulation of Political Parties ........................................................ 50 The Ballot: Political Parties as Gatekeepers .................................................................. 51 Introduction to the Ballot: Political Parties as Gatekeepers (pp. 348-352) ................ 51 Movement Towards Secret Ballot .......................................................................... 51 Restrictions on Whom Voters Can Vote For (pp. 352-362) ....................................... 51 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ............................................................... 51 Class Discussion on Burdick .................................................................................. 52 Restriction on Who Appears on the Ballot (pp. 362-373) ......................................... 53 Introduction to Restrictions on Who Appears on the Ballot .................................. 53 Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) .................................................................. 53 Class Discussion Bullock v. Carter ........................................................................ 53 Who Can Participate in a Party’s Activities? ................................................................. 54 Introduction to Who Can Participate in a Party’s Activities (pp. 373-374) ............... 54 Importance of Participation in Primary .................................................................. 54 Both the Party and the State Seek to Exclude Citizen X from Participating (pp. 374- 386) ............................................................................................................................ 54 Nader v. Schaffer, 417 F. Supp. 837 (D. Conn.), summarily aff’d, 429 U.S. 989 (1976) (pp. 374-379) .............................................................................................. 54 Duke v. Massey, 87 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 1996) (pp. 379-381) .............................. 54 Class Discussion on Duke v. Massey ..................................................................... 55 Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Sup. Ct. 1997) (pp. 382- 386) ........................................................................................................................ 55 The Party Seeks to Exclude Citizen X from Participating But the State Demands that the Party Permit Him to Participate (pp. 386-404) .................................................... 56 Democratic Party of the United States v. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) (pp. 386-391) ................................................................................................................. 56 California Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (pp. 391-404) ............................... 56 The Party Wishes to Permit Citizen X to Participate But the State Demands His Exclusion (pp. 404-410) ............................................................................................. 57 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986) (pp. 404-410) ................................................................................................................................ 57 When Can the Government Regulate a Party’s Internal Affairs (pp. 411-417) ............. 58 Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (pp. 411-417) .......................................................................................................... 58 Class Discussion on Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee ................................................................................................................................ 59 Does the Existing Legal Regime Improperly Entrench the Existing Two-Party System? ........................................................................................................................................ 59 Introduction to Does the Existing Legal Regime Improperly Entrench the Existing Two-Party System? (pp. 417-418) ............................................................................. 59 Challenges to Ballot Access by Independent and Third-Party Candidates ............ 59 Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (pp. 422-426) ................. 59 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) ............................ 59 Class Discussion on Timmons ............................................................................... 60 Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes ...................................... 60 Class Discussion on Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes ..... 60

F. Campaign Finance ......................................................................................................... 62 The First Amendment Background ................................................................................ 62 3 Categories of First Amendment Scrutiny (pp. 450-455) ......................................... 62 Time, Place, and Manner Regulation ..................................................................... 62 Content Regulation ................................................................................................. 62 Viewpoint Regulation ............................................................................................. 62 The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Regulation .................................... 62 Class Discussion on First Amendment Background .............................................. 62 Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................... 63 3 Approaches Central to Policy Debate (pp. 456-457) .............................................. 63 Regulation of Political Markets ............................................................................. 63 Equality .................................................................................................................. 63 Liberty .................................................................................................................... 63 Buckley v. Valeo ............................................................................................................. 63 Discussion of Buckley v. Valeo (pp. 457-460) ........................................................... 63 Background on 1974 Reforms to FECA ................................................................ 63 Court’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 64 Class Discussion on FECA and Buckley ............................................................... 64 Contribution Limits .................................................................................................... 66 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) (pp. 460-474) ................................................................................................................................ 66 Expenditure Limits ..................................................................................................... 67 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) (pp. 474-487) .................................................. 67 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 531 U.S. XX (2001) (pp. 487-499) .......................................................................................................... 68 Class Discussion on Expenditure Limits and Colorado Republican Line of Cases ................................................................................................................................ 69 Do Concerns Over Corruption Justify Campaign Finance Regulation? .................... 71 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) (pp. 499-513) ..... 71 Class Discussion on Bellotti ................................................................................... 71 Equality and Liberty in Political Campaigns ............................................................. 72 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) (pp. 515-524) 72 Class Discussion on Austin ............................................................................... 73 Has Campaign Finance Reform Worked (pp. 524-526) ............................................. 74 A Caution on Public Financing (pp. 526-527) ........................................................... 74 Proposals for Reform (pp. 527-533) .......................................................................... 74 Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 205 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2000) (pp. 529-533) .......................................................................... 74 The New Frontier: Issue Advocacy (pp. 533-545) ..................................................... 75 The Conceptual Problem: The Boundary Between Electoral Speech and Public Discourse ................................................................................................................ 75 Judicial Administration of the Boundary: the Law of Issue Advocacy ................. 75 Conclusion: Can Campaign Finance Regulation Overcome the Problem of Issue Advocacy? .............................................................................................................. 76 McConnell v. FEC (Supp. pp. 29-70) ........................................................................ 76

Introduction to Race-Conscious Redistricting ..................................................... 101 United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977) (pp. 889-896) ............................................................................................................... 101 Class Discussion on United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey...101 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (pp. 897-907) .............................................. 103 Class Discussion on Shaw v. Reno ...................................................................... 103 Notes on the Political and Technological Contexts of the Post-1990 Redistricting (pp. 907-924) ........................................................................................................ 104 Notes on Racial Gerrymandering and Standing (pp. 924-934) ............................ 104 Notes on Substantive Elements of Shaw Claim (pp. 934-945) ............................ 104 Hunt v. Cromartie, 531 U.S. XXX (2001) (pp. 946-958) .................................... 104 Additional Information from Class Discussion on Shaw and its Progeny ........... 105 Class Discussion on Hunt v. Cromartie ................................................................ 105 How Do We District in the Post-Shaw World? .................................................... 106 Reconciling Shaw and Its Progeny and the Voting Rights Act ............................ 106 J. Other Democratic Forms of Governance ...................................................................... 108 Direct Democracy (pp. 982-1037) ............................................................................... 108 Constitutional Underpinnings and Concerns (pp. 982-993) .................................... 108 Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) (pp. 985-991) ........................................................................................................ 108 Issacharoff on Direct Democracy Unit ................................................................ 108 Note on Money and the Initiative Process (pp. 991-992) .................................... 109 Direct Democracy and Rights of Political Participation – Popular Lawmaking and the Problems of Entrenchment (pp. 1011-1037) ...................................................... 109 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (pp. 1011-1026) ........ 109 Cook v. Gralike, 121 S.Ct. 1029 (2001) (pp. 1126-1134) .................................... 111 Direct Democracy and Rights of Political Participation – Popular Lawmaking and Unpopular Groups (pp. 993-1010) ........................................................................... 112 Evans v. Romer, 882 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1994) (pp. 1001-1009) ........................... 112 Class Discussion on Evans v. Romer ................................................................... 112 Note on Improving the Process of Direct Lawmaking (pp. 1009-1010) ............. 113 Alternative Democratic Structures ............................................................................... 113 Cumulative Voting (pp. 1099-1132) ......................................................................... 113 Introductory Notes to Cumulative Voting ............................................................ 113 Additional Notes on Cumulative Voting .............................................................. 114 Preference Voting or the Single Transferable Vote (pp. 1132-1141) ....................... 114 Limited Voting (pp. 1141-1151) ............................................................................... 114 The Lot Versus the Election (pp. 1151-1155) .......................................................... 115 Debate between Majoritarian Systems & Proportional Representation (pp. 1160- 1167) ........................................................................................................................ 115 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 115 Notes .................................................................................................................... 115 Consociational Democracy (pp. 1168-1172) ............................................................ 116 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 116 Notes .................................................................................................................... 116 Appendix 1 – Table of Authorities ................................................................................... 117

L AW OF D EMOCRACY Outline 1 A. I NTRODUCTION Introduction An Introduction to the Selection of Democratic Institutions (pp. 1- 15) Introduction  Conventional understanding of democracy privileges private preferences and collective deliberation as forming basis for state institutions  But, perhaps, unrealistic as democratic politics exists as part of a self-informing system where pre-existing institutional arrangements constrain range of possible results o Pre-existing institutions are borne of some combination of prior democratic choices and inertia o But those in power will often try to use their power to continue their control  Courts must strike a balance in their role as steward of democracy o Very hard for courts to overturn outcomes from pre-existing democratic selection processes o But courts may be only branch of government capable of creating certain types of political change that would otherwise fall to those who are already in power and are not otherwise unaccountable Lucas v. The Forty-Fourth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 (1964) (pp. 3-15)  F ACTS : District Court upheld apportionment scheme under Amendment XIV in which districts were allocated state senators and house members such that a sparsely populated rural districts had a disproportionate share of senators  D ECISION /H OLDING /R ATIONALE (Chief Justice Warren): Reversed and remanded; held that “individual’s constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote cannot be denied even by a vote of a majority of a State’s electorate, if the apportionment scheme fails to measure up to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause”  D ISSENT (Justice Clark): Would not interfere with state that has referendum system that continually addresses apportionment situations; agrees with Stewart that Colorado has variety of environments that may be fairly accounted for with present scheme; and Colorado’s arrangement is not arbitrary but is like the federal bicameral scheme  D ISSENT (Justice Stewart with Clark): Nothing in Court’s precedent supporting constitutional rule requiring seats in both houses of bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on population basis o Not about representing individuals but also about accommodation of group interests o Argues for alternative: (1) plan must be rational in light of particular characteristics of State and (2) must not “systematically” prevent majority rule  N OTES & Q UESTIONS :

o Two-Vote System of PR : Voters cast two votes, one for party and the other for candidate elected from a single-member district  Semi-Proportional Systems : Can include cumulative voting, preference voting, limited voting , and instant run-off voting systems o Interestingly, UK, home of the First Past the Post system, is considering shifting to more proportional form of representation, considering Alternative Voting/Instant Runoff

B. D EFINING THE R IGHT TO P ARTICIPATE The Right to Participate – Background Norms Introduction to the Right to Participate (pp. 16- 20) The Constitution and the Early History of Enfranchisement in the US  In original form, Constitution was very qui et on voting o Just said that members of House would be elected by people of several States and electors in each state shall have qualifications requisite for electors of most numerous branch of state legislature o And so left states to determine franchise  Most restricted to small sub-set of population  Supreme Court also noted that “the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one” in United States v. Cruikshank (US 1875)  Constitutional democratic structure had been designed to prevent rise of parties  avoid factionalism (obviously not terribly successful on that point) Constitutional Text (pp. 20- 46) Introduction to the Constitutional Text  Most of the Constitutional provisions dealing with the right to vote are phrased in the negative (e.g., Fifteenth for race; Nineteenth Amendments for sex; Twenty- Fourth for poll taxes; Twenty-Sixth regarding people age 18 years or older)  Most litigation has focused on first section of Fourteenth Amendment (privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection)  Surprisingly, some states have granted franchise only to take it away  see, e.g., NJ that gave women the vote in 1776 only to take it away by 1807 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) (pp. 21-37)  F ACTS : Minor, a female Missouri citizen, sued for voting rights under Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause notwithstanding state’s statute that clearly did not extend franchise to women  D ECISION /H OLDING /R ATIONALE (Chief Justice Waite): Affirm judgment, holding that Constitution “does not confer right of suffrage upon any one and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void” o Framers would have included it if they had meant for voting to be one of the rights of citizenship o Fourteenth Amendment included use of the word “male” o Would have made Fifteenth Amendment duplicative o Universal suffrage was not current practice in states at time of adoption (except for NJ)  N OTES & Q UESTIONS : o (1-3) “Male” Enters the Constitution : Use of the word “male” in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment was hotly contested both before and after adoption by suffragettes and their supporters  tried using Section 5 of

 Also Congress passed Cable Act (1922) based on Nineteenth Amendment, allowing women who married certain foreign nationals to retain their citizenship o (10) New Historiography of Suffragette Movement : Lots of new, good scholarship such as Keyssar who argued that women’s suffrage was the largest mass movement for expansion of franchise in American history with many state-by-state efforts (especially successful in the Western frontier)  Changes in political and cultural milieu played a role too:  E.g., white women were considered a bulwark against increased black enfranchisement  But some women argued against their own enfranchisement o (11) “No Taxation with Representation” : Some women were significant property-holders/taxpayers and there was some civil disobedience related to lack of franchise o (11 continued) Comparing Race and Sex Discrimination : Siegel argues that the law treats race and sex discrimination differently, often looking to long history of instances of de jure racial discrimination but focused on history of social attitudes that are products of custom an consensus with sex discrimination  [Think about similar language across Fifteenth and Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments  should they be read as similar/would this reject Siegel’s interpretive approach to the Nineteenth Amendment?] Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) (pp. 38-46)  F ACTS : 3 ex-offenders tried to register to vote in contravention of California’s constitutional felony disenfranchisement provision and then filed suit based on EPC of Fourteenth Amendment as well as bringing up § 2 of the Amendment that deals with “participation in rebellion”  D ECISION /H OLDING /R ATIONALE (Justice Rehnquist): Historical and textual reasons to distinguish felony disenfranchisement from other state limitations under EPC  argues that since § 2 exempts felon disenfranchisement from reducing state’s congressional seats, it means that felon disenfranchisement cannot violate § 1 of the Amendment  N OTES & Q UESTIONS : o (2) Philosophical Underpinnings of Felony Disenfranchisement : Rests on notions of contract and competence  But kind of bullshit  see Uggen & Manza work that tracks number of states with felon disenfranchisement laws and notes the rise following federal legislation that was designed to enfranchise more people, primarily racial minorities o (3) Hunter v. Underwood (US 1985) : Supreme Court struck down § 182 of Alabama Constitution, which disenfranchised individuals convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, because clear discriminatory intent

(delegates to AL constitutional convention had selected those offenses because they were thought to be committed more frequently by African- Americans) o (4) Felon Disenfranchisement – and its Racial Impact – Increasingly Issue for Public Debate and Litigation : Almost 13% of black men cannot vote because of felon disenfranchisement; no other democracy disenfranchises as many people due to criminal records  So far, litigation based on EPC and Voting Rights Act have been unsuccessful  In Baker v. Pataki (2d. Cir. 1996) ( en banc ), five justices determined that § 2 of Voting Rights Act (about disproportionate impact) did not reach felon disenfranchisement because it would be overreaching of Congress’s enforcement powers that, they argued, should be limited to redressing historical or purposeful discrimination while five justices disagreed o (5) Felon Disenfranchisement – Electoral and Policy Consequences : Uggen & Manza found that felon disenfranchisement influenced outcome of elections in Florida and other places Class Comments on Richardson  Throwback in analytic structure, returning to Minor (ultimate question is whether there is a right to vote for this category of persons and finding that there is no right is dispositive of the question) o Rehnquist goes through textual provision of 14 th Amendment to figure out whether enfranchisement for felons is right or privilege and then looks to then and now contemporary practices  Problem with Rehnquist’s § 2 textual analysis is that it assumes a lot just because there is one specified prohibited political remedy  In general commentary on felon disenfranchisement: o Rationale for felon disenfranchisement:  Can be thought of as just sentencing/sanction  Think about problems with collateral sanctions generally  Competence and social contract issues  Can’t discriminate against people based on how they might vote (Mormon case not clearly still good law, see Marshall dissent in Richardson ) o Possible, even without bringing race into the issue, DPC makes felon disenfranchisement problematic because it is not generally tied to underlying offense/often no notice? Individual Rights The Modern Constitutional Framework (pp. 46- 72) Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959) (pp. 46-48)  F ACTS : Lassiter, black North Carolinian, refused to submit to literacy test and so was denied registration as voter

local public school  appellant is stockbrokers who was not eligible to register or vote in local school district elections  D ECISION /H OLDING /R ATIONALE (Chief Justice Warren): Overturn statute as it is not closely tailored enough to meet stated goal of limiting to those “primarily interest” in school affairs given importance of franchise o When dealing with franchise goes to “exacting judicial scrutiny”  D ISSENT (Justice Stewart with Black and Harlan joining): Doesn’t see why one wouldn’t keep with rational basis standard and seems pretty straightforward that there is such a basis for limitation that is not categorically suspect (as would be the case with race); additionally, restrictive statute was promulgated by NY state legislature (which Kramer is eligible to vote for) Class Comments on Kramer  Specialized election but still applied strict scrutiny o State wasn’t obliged to make board subject to elections but once the state did, they would be held to more exacting standards  Have to wonder if once you follow Harper path, if you can show that there is no insidious purpose, is it ever permissible to have a state classification touching on the franchise? o Perhaps, we should be less suspicious when certain activities (e.g., school boards) can be taken out of the franchise arena all together [but must note that sending stuff to unelected boards is a bit perverse]  Also, we will return to dissent’s question regarding when one has power to influence state legislature (not being excluded from entirety of polity) Notes and Questions on the Modern Constitutional Framework (Different Categories: Citizenship, Age, Residency, Homeless, Overseas, Special vs. General Elections)  Lassiter was decided under rational relationship standard while Harper and Kramer were decided under strict scrutiny (third tier is intermediate, which is often used for sex discrimination)  (2) Basis for Strict Scrutiny : Typically used when suspect classification is used or when fundamental right is impaired  (4) Citizenship : For many years, citizenship was not invariable requirement for voting as was noted in Minor ; in Cabell v. Chavez-Salido (US 1982), Court stated that “exclusion of aliens from basic governmental processes is not a deficiency in the democratic system but a necessary consequence of the community’s process of self-definition” o Think about how this might apply in Kramer  (5) Age : After Supreme Court held that 1970 amendment to Voting Rights Act, which enfranchised 18-year-olds in state and local elections, was unconstitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell (US 1970), Congress passed the Twenty-Sixth Amendment that provided for enfranchisement of 18-year-olds o Might suggest that under-18-year-olds have no claim ala Richardson v. Ramirez (1) 3 Tiers of Scrutiny : md 2023-09-15 17:59:11 -------------------------------------------- Strict, intermediate, rational basis.

o To some degree, age is arbitrary bright-line rule that is both under- and over-inclusive when it comes to weeding out those who are not competent to choose public officials  (6) Residency : Relatively little litigation over citizenship and age restrictions but residency restrictions have been challenged more often o In Carrington v. Rash (US 1965), Court struck down provision of TX Constitution that prohibited any member of Armed Forces of US who moved to TX during course of duty was barred from voting until left service o In Dunn v. Blumstein (US 1982), Court upheld residency requirement but held that TN’s additional requirement of substantial period of residency failed strict scrutiny, rejecting claims that durational requirement was necessary to prevent fraud (no pressing administrative convenience concern) and to ensure educated, committed voters (over- and under- inclusive) o But see Marston v. Lewis (US 1973) where Court upheld AZ’s 50-day durational residency requirement for state and local elections given administrative necessity of obtaining accurate voting rolls in time for election  Federal law establishes national 30-day cutoff under 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1 (1994)  allows person who has moved to vote in old district via absentee voting or by person if had been registered there prior to move  (7) Who Counts as a “Bona Fide” Resident? : In Carrington v. Rush (US 1965), Court struck down TX constitutional provision prohibiting any member of Armed Forces who moved to TX from voting while still a member of Armed Forces as overly broad residency restriction  could not do it just for administrative convenience or because fears of how population might vote o Other groups that might overwhelm local populations have been subject to restrictive enfranchisement schemes  compare Auerbach v. Rettaliata (2d Cir. 1985) (upholding NY scheme that provides for more searching inquiry for certain classes of prospective voters, such as students, that are more likely to be transient) with Williams v. Salerno (2d Cir. 1986) (forbidding registrars of Westchester County from applying more stringent substantive standard to registration applications of students living in dorms)  As quick side note, should it matter that census lists students as living where they go to school? What would this notion of residency mean for in-state/out-of-state tuition?  (8) The Homeless : Most states allow homeless to vote, but about 2/3 require mailing address o In general, courts have held that fixed address is unnecessary if homeless can otherwise provide sufficient information regarding usual location so as to allow assignment of precinct as in Pitts v. Black (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (striking down NY law requiring fixed address); Collier v. Menzel (Cal.

while upholding state efforts to deny other aspects of citizenship to blacks, including right to participate on juries), and; Williams v. Mississippi (US 1898) (no right to participate on juries) Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) (pp. 91-93)  F ACTS : Bill of equity on behalf of Alabaman African-American men who were denied registration; applied for registration in March 1902 and was arbitrarily denied; particularly problematic because AL constitution had all people registered to vote prior to 1903 remain electors for life while after that much harder tests  D ECISION /H OLDING /R ATIONALE (Justice Holmes): Denies relief because (1) π alleges that whole registration scheme is unconstitutional and so requested relief of registering him under doesn’t make sense and (2) Court is not going to be able to enforce order/change political issues  D ISSENT (Justice Brewer): Strictly legal question and precedent for finding jurisdiction and granting damages relief  D ISSENT (Justice Brown): [Not included in casebook]  D ISSENT (Justice Harlan): Court lacks jurisdiction because nothing in record showed amount in dispute was $2000 (then-existing jurisdictional amount) but otherwise agrees with Brewer  N OTES & Q UESTIONS : o (2) Disingenuousness of Holmes’ Opinion : Can be thought as turning on distinction between equitable and legal relief but then Giles sought damages for $5000, but was denied by both AL and Supreme Court o (3) Candor of Holmes’ Opinion : Could have dismissed on number of technical grounds but went further to confront racial issues involved o (4) Early Adoption of Voting Rights as Fundamental : Brewer and Harlan dissents can be seen as early recognition that voting is fundamental right warranting strictest judicial scrutiny  Brewer had authored Berea College and Harlan authored Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education o (5) Media Reaction to Giles : Media recognized sweep of Giles with NY Times editorial calling it “monstrous denial of justice and a humiliating admission of helplessness by the court” o (6) Congressional Disregard : Did nothing to sanction or stop discriminatory practices even though had remedies available including reducing representation of Southern states in proportion to extent of disenfranchisement o (7) Context and Meaning of Giles : Occurred during Redemption when failure to enforce failure civil rights legislation and widespread efforts to disenfranchise black voters in the South were prevalent  If Giles had come out of differently, would it have meant that Supreme Court would have had to administrate state government?  Holmes’ view as overly pessimistic realist view, not noting the fluidity of the enfranchisement status in many places

o (8) Guinn , or, a Possible Repudiation of Giles ? : In Guinn v. United States (US 1915), Supreme Court invalidated “grandfather clause,” exempting those who were eligible to vote – or were lineal descendents – from literacy test, in OK state constitutional amendment as violation of Fifteenth Amendment  Later, OK tried another scheme letting in all those who registered under struck grandfather clause and requiring everybody else to register within restrictive 12-day window  Supreme Court struck this down in Lane v. Wilson (US 1939) with Frankfurter distinguishing this from Giles by saying that it was legal, not equitable, claim being raised and that it is “inequality of treatment under color of law, not denial of the right to vote” that was being remedied and that the Fifteenth Amendment “nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination” Class Comments on Giles  A little Civ Pro history: to get into court, need either diversity jurisdiction or federal question and, at time of Giles , there was minimum amount in controversy for both and the amount was more with federal question o From English common law, there was a basis for alleging such damages  tortious interference with the franchise but this is an action at law and so equitable relief would not be appropriate  Legal question at hand: Did Fifteenth Amendment provide basis for injunctive relief against AL for refusal to register blacks to vote?  Case showcases the worst of Holmes and his belief that the law lacked a legitimate social transformative power  As noted in reading, conventional story of Reconstruction-to-Redemption decline in black enfranchisement once federal troops left, political will of people was closely divided and court could have had a huge impact  On other hand, post- Brown , very easy to question about effectiveness of judicial injunctions that Court could not easily implement/enforce versus damages mechanism especially if individual state actor responsible for implementation/enforcement is personally liable for damages o So, perhaps, Holmes’ constitutional vision – where damages applied at low-level will be more effective than top-down injunctions – would have been more effective (think about product liability forcing producers to internalize costs) o But, as Ayana noted, individual suits are very tough  Interesting note, Giles is only black federal employee in Montgomery, AL, and so is immune from most state action Techniques for Outright Disenfranchisement (pp. 101-102) History and Methods of Disenfranchisement of African-Americans  Cruikshank (force), Giles (arbitrary restrictive registration upheld), Guinn (arbitrary restrictive registration struck), Lane (arbitrary restrictive registration