State's Rights, Last Rites, and Voting Rights

Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer, G. Charles
{"title":"State's Rights, Last Rites, and Voting Rights","authors":"Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer, G. Charles","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2377475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two ways to read the Court's decision in Shelby County, as a minimalist decision and as a decision that has undermined the basic infrastructure of voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. In this Essay, we present the case for reading Shelby County as deeply destabilizing. We argue that Shelby County has undermined three assumptions that are foundational to voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. First, the Court has generally granted primacy of the federal government over the states. Second, the Court has deferred to Congress particularly where Congress is regulating at the intersection of race and voting. Third, the Court and Congress have understood that racial discrimination is the problem and have operated from a similar conception of what racial discrimination means. Shelby County undermines all three assumptions. We explore what this means for voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence going forward.","PeriodicalId":80998,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2377475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There are two ways to read the Court's decision in Shelby County, as a minimalist decision and as a decision that has undermined the basic infrastructure of voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. In this Essay, we present the case for reading Shelby County as deeply destabilizing. We argue that Shelby County has undermined three assumptions that are foundational to voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence. First, the Court has generally granted primacy of the federal government over the states. Second, the Court has deferred to Congress particularly where Congress is regulating at the intersection of race and voting. Third, the Court and Congress have understood that racial discrimination is the problem and have operated from a similar conception of what racial discrimination means. Shelby County undermines all three assumptions. We explore what this means for voting rights policy, law, and jurisprudence going forward.
州权、临终仪式和投票权
有两种方式来解读最高法院对谢尔比县的裁决,一种是将其视为一个极简主义的裁决,另一种是将其视为一个破坏投票权政策、法律和判例基础的裁决。在这篇文章中,我们提出了阅读谢尔比县的案例,因为它非常不稳定。我们认为谢尔比县破坏了投票权政策、法律和法理的三个基本假设。首先,最高法院一般认为联邦政府优先于各州。第二,最高法院听从国会的意见,特别是在国会监管种族和投票的交叉领域。第三,最高法院和国会都明白,种族歧视是问题所在,并且对种族歧视的含义有着相似的理解。谢尔比县破坏了这三个假设。我们将探讨这对未来的投票权政策、法律和判例意味着什么。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信