Federal Diversity Case Study

There is clearly a discriminatory purpose behind the need of the Section 4(b) removal especially from a county that has prior racial discrimination in its past. Justice Ginsburg also mentions an important note that “Between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory” . This only proves the need for Section 4(b) even stronger and that without the preclearance and the coverage formula, more discriminatory behavior would have been able to pass through the cracks of the political system, further disenfranchising minorities and pushing back the long hard legislation that has been fought so hard

Once whites regained control of the state by a process known as "Redemption," they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the number of black elected officials. In the 1890s, these states began to amend their constitutions and to ratify a series of laws intended to re-establish and establish white political supremacy. “Such disfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and disqualification for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were "color-blind" on their face, but were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the procedures

The most quoted part of the declaration today is probably “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”- Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It is mostly used for black lives matter or any feminist “peaceful protests”. How is this connected to gerrymandering? Well, the entire point of gerrymandering is to have the opposing parties votes not count as much, in 2012 Republicans used gerrymandering very well. This would drive the Democrats crazy, yes their votes didn't count as much. Yes, that is unconstitutional, many may argue that some parts of gerrymandering are ok, but that is false. All votes should count the

Throughout America’s history the franchise has been withheld from different groups. This has been possible due to weakly written laws that do not provide adequate protections. In 1965 PL 89-110 was passed, this law, commonly known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finally provided real protections for minorities living in southern states. In recent years the language of the law was modified within the Supreme Court to take away the law’s primary power. In the following mock Congressional testimony we will go back to 1848, 13 years before the American Civil War, and provide evidence of why a law like PL 89-110 is necessary and commendable.

In fact, Harlan emphasizes that a legislative body should not take race into account when considering the rights of citizens. The statute of Louisiana, however, does perpetuate race-based discrimination even as it pretends to grant equal rights to both white and African-American citizens, thereby contradicting the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

Although the majority correctly avoided the constitutional question, Justice Scalia authored a concurring opinion addressing the issue. Justice Scalia’s opinion poses the question: “[w]hether or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?” Id. at 2682, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 515. Justice Scalia’s assertion that “Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes” mischaracterizes the Act. Id. The disparate-impact provision of Title VII simply allows for and encourages employers to be cognizant of the racial impact of their business practices so that they can craft fair assessment procedures that gives everyone equal opportunity. Justice Scalia callously classified the City’s action as racial decision-making. This contention disregards the fact that race consciousness was deemed

Racial gerrymandering is also a conflict to the XIV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the district maps in Virginia’s case favors whites over African-Americans, giving them more votes in legislation of districts. African Americans don’t have an equal representation because of how the districts were drawn. Although the African-American population in Virginia isn’t much compared to the white population, that does not mean that the number of African-Americans should consist of one commonwealth representative. This exemplifies how African-Americans’ chance to obtain such a political position in Virginia is unfair as a result of gerrymandering.

Resident of Shelby County, Tennessee, Charles Baker filed a suit against the Secretary of State Joe Carr. Baker`s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its districts since 1901 in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. Baker then living in the urban area asserted that since the legislature had not been changed in over 10 years this would then affect his vote which would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker`s objective was to sought after an injunction stopping further elections and reapportionment.

The state of Maryland has been battling unconstitutional gerrymandering for years now. According to Washington Post writer Robert Barnes, recently the Supreme Court granted Steve Shapiro a Maryland man continuance in the lawsuit regarding the state’s congressional redistricting being unconstitutionally gerrymandered. Lower courts were proved wrong by the Supreme Court for attempting to dismiss the lawsuit. Maryland democrats adjusted district lines in favor of their political party to win over seven of the eight congressional districts. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s spokeswoman stated that the lawsuit shines light on the political influence taking place when redistricting occurs. The case is officially

Nearly a century after the Confederacy’s guns fell silent, the racial legacies of slavery and Reconstruction continued to reverberate loudly throughout Alabama in 1965. Even the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 months earlier had done little in some parts of the state to ensure African Americans of the basic right to vote. Perhaps no place was Jim Crow’s grip tighter than in Dallas County, where African Americans made up more than half of the population, yet accounted for just 2 percent of registered voters.

It was not until 1964 in the case of Reynolds vs Sims that found “An individual 's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State” (Reynolds v Sims), which came as a result of discriminatory representation in the state of Alabama.

In 2010 the Texas population grew by about 4.3 million people. Latinos accounted for 65 percent of the increase, blacks 13.4 percent and Asian-Americans 10.1 percent (Barnes). According to Texas Department of State Health Services, data taken from The Census Bureau in 2010 showed that the out of the 25,145,561 people in Texas the Black Population was 3,003,149 (11.94%) and the Hispanic Population was 9,460,921 (37.62%) meaning that 49.56% of Texas was comprised of Black and Hispanic minority groups. Census data taken from the 2012 national election showed that minority groups favored the Democratic Party and that has been historically so for many years with only a few shifts to the Republican Party. However, in Texas Democrats make up 11 of the 38 seats in Congress, including both the Senate and House of Representatives. Ironically though, 28.94% of the Congressmen from Texas are democratic whereas 49.56% of the population of Texas is comprised of minority groups that traditionally vote democratic. This discrepancy between the Texas population and the Texas congressional population goes to show that gerrymandering in order to favor white majority groups who typically vote republican did indeed occur in the 2012 election following the 2010 Census which is a violation of Article 2 of the Voting Rights

Vera Blum continued to bring cases to court and in 2013 Blum brought the case Shelby County V. Holder. This case was centered around The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and officially questioned if “the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and therefore Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution” (“Shelby County V. Holder”). While this is quite likely easily understood by one who is familiar with the law, the vast majority are not so intimately acquainted with the Constitution. Therefore, to grasp the very essence of this case requires a great deal of unpacking. Upon unpacking the question it becomes easy to divide the question into two distinct parts; what Blum’s team is seeking to abolish and his explanation as to why. The purpose of this paper simply requires an understanding of the former and allows us to focus on the important and manageable two, as opposed to the overwhelming six. The question brought by Shelby County starts with “Does the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority” this reveals the intent to either combat the renewal of Section 5 or to remove “the constraints” put in place by Section 4(b) (“Shelby County V. Holder”). To challenge Section 5 is to challenge the section of The Voting Rights Act that prohibits a very specific list of areas from changing their voting

Attorney Kevin Shenkman sent a letter to the City, the GCCD, and GUSD threatening to file a lawsuit, asserting that the election system of the three bodies violates the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Shenkman wants the aforementioned bodies to create specific geographic council districts to replace the current at-large voting system.

It was designed to give black people a fair chance to elect a representative of their choosing. The Voting Rights Act, prohibiting the weakening of the voting powers among a minority. Determining where this district should be located prove to be problematic because it initially included a 64 percent black-majority district that stretched from Gastonia to Durham. It was very long and so thin District that at some points that is said to have been no wider than a highway lane, following along Interstate 85. The problem with this is that it created a racially gerrymandering environment within the district, and it violated the Equal Protection