The equal protection clause of the Constitution provided George W. Bush with a historical argument that surprisingly fit his case. Not every Floridians ballot was provided with the same protections. There was no statewide vote recount procedure, every county had their own provisions.Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the conflicting manual recount
In the past, the Supreme Court took up the matter of gerrymandering to determine its legality (Stankiewicz). Stankiewicz described two instances when he stated the following:
Padilla 1 Padilla 3 Maureen Padilla Prof. Sharifian GOVT 2306- 73434 30 Apr. 2017 Local Control In Texas, Governor Abbott, has claimed to pass on the ban of local control, due to money. The government of Texas, has called it a quits for fracking, plastic bags, and red light cameras, also
The Texas Constitution The current version of the Texas constitution is the six version by which it has been governed under since it was framed by the Constitutional Convention of 1875 and adopted on February 15, 1876. This version of the constitution is based on the U.S constitution that came into
Texans lived in a one party state for nearly a century. In Texas the only party that was in control was the Democratic Party from the post-Civil war era to the late 1970’s. In Texas politics for approximately over 100 years the Republican Party was basically non-existent. In a one
In the “Point: Abolishing the Electoral College,” Benjamin Bolinger, a licensed lawyer who can practice law in Colorado and Pennsylvania, argues that the Electoral College needs to be abolished for the American democracy. Bolinger examines that some states with a little population have large number of electoral college compare to those states with larger populations. He believes that the Electoral College damages the value of democratic government by leaving
Analysts explained: This ruling of the Supreme Court gave 9 states power to make their own election law, which overthrew the essential principle of the Voting Rights Act. The Court believed that the decision was right because the American society had changed: “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to current conditions” (Mears & Botehlo). Right after the ruling, ‘Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval” (Liptak). This ruling brought strong opposition, the main reason being that the Voting Rights Act had benefited the United States profoundly by protecting people who were fighting for their equal rights. Opponents pointed out that there were still people fighting for their
* Michael A. Hess,Beyond Justiciability: Political Gerrymandering after Davis v. Bandemer, 9 CampbellL. Rev. 207
The election of judges can initially affect the way justice in Texas is seen by not balancing the true equality of the justice system. Choosing the incorrect person for a high power position, such as someone determined to play God like Adolf Hitler, can and will affect the community tremendously. Experts from the Center for American Progress say “…judges are expected to be true to the law, not to political parties or campaign contributors.” (Corriher, Web) Other ways it affects Texas is through the jurist’s quality of votes, especially through partisan elections. They may be able to see who they are voting for, but only base votes on what appeals to them. The Center for American progress addresses this by commenting how, “…voters tend to vote for the judicial candidates from the party with which they are affiliated.” (Corriher, Web) Elections can take a toll on Texas
Article VI of the U.S Constitution contains the supremacy clause and is essentially declaring that it is “the supreme law of the land and superior to all laws adopted by any state or subdivision”(pg.71). In addition another main difference is the necessary and proper clause which is found in Article I, Section 8. This clause provides Congress to make all laws “necessary and proper to carry out its powers.”(pg.72) Throughout the history of Texas’s constitutions, drafters of the constitution have been unwilling to let government interfere as much with the state by essentially constricting officeholder with extensive grants of discretionary
Explain the constitutional problem of political gerrymandering. Why have the courts been unwilling to enter this quarrel?
The state of Texas found out that “no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years ("Hernandez v. Texas.").” Furthermore, the lawyers disputed that it was unfair that they were no Mexican Americans that can support the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court judge denied their motion after listening to their arguments. After listening to this case in the District Court, and the Texas Court of Appeals, this case was now going to be reviewed by the U.S Supreme Court, which was Gus Garcia’s plan. It was expensive to go to trial in the Supreme Court but since every Mexican wanted all these injustices abolished, they were raising money so the lawyers can take the case to Washington (Carlos M.
the Supreme Court to make a very big decision about the way Texas can handle abortions and
Texas. In 2014 president Obama announced a set of immigration actions that offered certain immigrants the ability to apply for temporary protection from deportation. The Act targeted immigrant who came to the U.S. as children and have lived here their entire lives. The action would keep millions of families together. However, soon after the initiatives were announced Texas and 25 other sate sued the federal to prevent this implementation. The states argued the administration has overstepped its legal authority to enforce the immigration law. On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court announced it would accept the case. The Supreme Court accepted the case based off a few reasons. First, the Justices decided this case brought up several federal law questions with the government overstepping their boundaries. Lastly, there was an inconsistency between the Fifth Circuit court and U.S. District Court with two different rulings on a federal issue. The Supreme Court had decided to intervene and clarify the
(Oyez, 2016) In that case held by the state, a majority opinion by Justice Harlan that even