Judicial Diversity After Shelby County v. Holder

William Roth
{"title":"Judicial Diversity After Shelby County v. Holder","authors":"William Roth","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2501685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, voters in ten of the fifteen states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act (\"VRA\") preclearance formula-including six of the nine states covered in their entirety-will go to the polls to elect or retain state supreme court justices. Yet despite the endemic underrepresentation of minorities on state benches and the judiciary's traditional role in fighting discrimination, scholars have seemingly paid little attention to how Shelby County v. Holder's suspension of the coverage formula in section 4(b) has left racial minorities vulnerable to retrogressive changes to judicial-election laws. The first election year following Shelby County thus provides a compelling opportunity to assess the VRA's ongoing role in the fight to diversify state benches.","PeriodicalId":362456,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2501685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2014, voters in ten of the fifteen states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") preclearance formula-including six of the nine states covered in their entirety-will go to the polls to elect or retain state supreme court justices. Yet despite the endemic underrepresentation of minorities on state benches and the judiciary's traditional role in fighting discrimination, scholars have seemingly paid little attention to how Shelby County v. Holder's suspension of the coverage formula in section 4(b) has left racial minorities vulnerable to retrogressive changes to judicial-election laws. The first election year following Shelby County thus provides a compelling opportunity to assess the VRA's ongoing role in the fight to diversify state benches.
谢尔比县诉霍尔德案后的司法多样性
2014年,在先前被《投票权法案》(VRA)预先许可公式覆盖的15个州中,有10个州的选民——包括全部被覆盖的9个州中的6个州——将前往投票站选举或保留州最高法院法官。然而,尽管少数族裔在州议会中的代表性普遍不足,而且司法部门在打击歧视方面的传统角色,学者们似乎很少关注谢尔比县诉霍尔德案中第4(b)条中暂停覆盖范围公式的做法如何使少数族裔容易受到司法选举法倒退变化的影响。因此,继谢尔比县之后的第一个选举年提供了一个令人信服的机会来评估VRA在争取州席位多样化方面的持续作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信