Essay On Golden Week Of Voting

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

Implying that congress does not have the constitutional authority to punish states for the past by using old data to impose upon elections (and the 10th amendment) in the present. If congress is to justify treating the states differently by denying 10th amendment powers to regulate elections, then it must be based on ‘current conditions’ and ‘current needs’. The justice goes on to argue the importance of state sovereignty citing Katzenbach and Norwest Austin and continually reiterating this concept throughout the

Vicki Lee Roach had her rights infringed from voting the Federal 2007 elections as she was serving a sentence above three years preventing her from voting, others than her other prisoners had their rights infringed serving a sentence more than three years.

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

The defendant argued that Congress found substantial evidence of racial discrimination in voting in the jurisdictions that are covered and that even if voting dilution does not violate the 15th Amendment, it does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore Congress can protect against vote dilution. Next, the plaintiff argued that the ruling in the D.C. Circuit, which would allow Congress to determine for itself the constitutional significance of the evidence, threatened to remove the limitation that Congress may enforce but not interpret the 14th and 15th Amendments and that the D.C. Circuit used to absence of discrimination to prove that the preclearance requirement is effective and still necessary. On this issue, the defendant argued that Congress correctly determined that Section 5 continues to ward off discrimination in voting that would violate the Constitution. Third, the plaintiff argued that even if preclearance is justified, the coverage formula is not rational since it is based on decades old data and also because the factors that are considered are “first generation” ballot access issues, while the Voting Rights Act is meant to defeat “second-generation problems” such as vote dilution. The defendant argued that Congress determined which jurisdictions should be covered and then engineered a formula that would cover those specific jurisdictions, so the formula is still relevant because it specifies the areas which Congress

The United States Supreme Court refused to enter into the political process of redistricting in Colegrove v. Green() stating, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.”() In Baker v. Carr() twenty years later, the Court changed its mind, entering the redistricting arena. Ever since entering the “political thicket,” the Court has continuously failed to find a “judicially discernible and manageable standard” of the legality of gerrymandering. ()

The right to vote is at the core of what it means to participate in one’s democracy. The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments brought more people into the voting population by explicitly extending the right to vote to all races, genders, and people over the age of 18. However, a significant number of people are unable to vote today because of their criminal background. The increase of felon disenfranchisement was strategically coupled with the rise of mass incarceration and should be outlawed either by congressional act or by constitutional amendment.

Republican claim says that we do not have enough time to elect a new justice but I believe we do. The longest election was 100 days long and we have way more than 100 days before the new President takes office. The Republicans are also being unconstitutional.

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

The Supreme Court of the United States has produced many infamous cases in its existence as a part of the three branches of government. It has seen many cases pertaining in particular to the Voting Rights Act initially enacted in 1965. There are two sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that are of particular concern in most cases, sections 4 and 5. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain states, districts, and localities to obtain federal preclearance before making any changes or alterations to their election laws or practices (Overby). Section 4 specifies a formula for determining whether a geographical area is subject to section 5 (Overby). When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 it was originally restricted to five years. However, since then there have been multiple extensions. Congress extended it for the first time in 1970 for another five years, followed by another extension in 1975 for seven more years, and for another twenty-five years in 1982 (The Oyez Project). When the twenty-five year reauthorization came to expire in 2006, Congress yet again extended the 1965 Voting Rights Act for another twenty-five years (The Oyez Project). Since its passing and continuous reauthorizations, there have been many attempts to declare the Voting Rights Act, specifically sections 4 and 5 unconstitutional. A distinct case that warrants a closer look is the case of Shelby County v. Holder.

This article, “Swing State Rulings on Restrictive Voting Laws… (etc),” is an article that is set to highlight the inequality that is a result from laws put in place to not allow certain people the ability to vote. While many of these laws are packaged to look like something to prevent voter fraud, or other purposes, they are often times just a Jim Crowe law, in a different costume.

"Section 5 of the Act contains a "preclearance" requirement that requires certain states and local governments to obtain a determination by the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that changes to their voting laws or practices do not "deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group", before those changes may be enforced."(wiki)