咨询规则制定和投票权法案的未来

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
S. ElmendorfChristopher
{"title":"咨询规则制定和投票权法案的未来","authors":"S. ElmendorfChristopher","doi":"10.1089/elj.2015.0315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Unlike many other statutes, the Voting Rights Act authorizes no administrative agency to issue implementing rules with the force of law. This essay nonetheless argues that guidelines issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the notice-and-comment process could play a critically important role in persuading the Supreme Court not to construe the Voting Rights Act into quiescence—an outcome that otherwise seems quite likely. Though DOJ guidelines would not bind anyone outside of the agency, they could have a substantial impact on the Supreme Court's assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative statutory constructions. The guidelines I suggest would clarify the relationship between statutory and constitutional violations, while bolstering the manageability of racial vote dilution law and reducing its dependence on strong racial assumptions. This evolution in voting rights law would be difficult for the Court to bring about on its own, unaided by agency rulemaking.","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/elj.2015.0315","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advisory Rulemaking and the Future of the Voting Rights Act\",\"authors\":\"S. ElmendorfChristopher\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/elj.2015.0315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Unlike many other statutes, the Voting Rights Act authorizes no administrative agency to issue implementing rules with the force of law. This essay nonetheless argues that guidelines issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the notice-and-comment process could play a critically important role in persuading the Supreme Court not to construe the Voting Rights Act into quiescence—an outcome that otherwise seems quite likely. Though DOJ guidelines would not bind anyone outside of the agency, they could have a substantial impact on the Supreme Court's assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative statutory constructions. The guidelines I suggest would clarify the relationship between statutory and constitutional violations, while bolstering the manageability of racial vote dilution law and reducing its dependence on strong racial assumptions. This evolution in voting rights law would be difficult for the Court to bring about on its own, unaided by agency rulemaking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/elj.2015.0315\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2015.0315\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2015.0315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与许多其他法规不同,《选举权法》没有授权行政机关颁布具有法律效力的实施细则。尽管如此,本文认为司法部通过通知和评论程序发布的指导方针可以在说服最高法院不要将《投票权法案》解释为沉默方面发挥至关重要的作用,否则这一结果似乎很有可能出现。尽管司法部的指导方针不会约束机构以外的任何人,但它们可能对最高法院对替代法定解释的成本和收益的评估产生重大影响。我建议的指导方针将澄清违反法律和宪法之间的关系,同时加强种族投票稀释法的可管理性,并减少其对强烈种族假设的依赖。如果没有机构规则制定的帮助,法院很难独自实现投票权法的这种演变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advisory Rulemaking and the Future of the Voting Rights Act
Abstract Unlike many other statutes, the Voting Rights Act authorizes no administrative agency to issue implementing rules with the force of law. This essay nonetheless argues that guidelines issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the notice-and-comment process could play a critically important role in persuading the Supreme Court not to construe the Voting Rights Act into quiescence—an outcome that otherwise seems quite likely. Though DOJ guidelines would not bind anyone outside of the agency, they could have a substantial impact on the Supreme Court's assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative statutory constructions. The guidelines I suggest would clarify the relationship between statutory and constitutional violations, while bolstering the manageability of racial vote dilution law and reducing its dependence on strong racial assumptions. This evolution in voting rights law would be difficult for the Court to bring about on its own, unaided by agency rulemaking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
×
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