s00 outline law and democracy

8/13/2019 S00 Outline law and democracy

1/22

LAW OF DEMOCRACY

PildesSpring 2000

I. INDIVIDUAL RI!" "O VO"E

#. In$r%d&'$i%n

(. C%ns$i$&$i%n)!is$%r*+

a. Citizenship & right to vote NOT defined in Cb. State determination of voter eligibilityc. Amendments :

1thAmendment !1"#$%: blac s'ffrage

1(thAmendment !1()$%: *omen+s s'ffrage

),rdAmendment !1(-1%: .C. s'ffrage for presidential elections

)-thAmendment !1(#1%: 1"/year/olds

d. 0& Cla'se !Sla'ghterho'se Cases%: narro*ly defined2 not font of rights

). V%$ing , F&nd-en$-l Rig/$:

-. !ARPER (13 in$r%d&'es s$ri'$ s'r&$in* 4%$ing -s 56&nd-en$-l rig/$7

8. 9RAMER 4. UNION FREE SC! DIS" NO. (: (113 + '%n6irs 6&nd-en$-l rig/$s

-ppr%-'/ n%$ s&spe'$ 'l-ss3

c. Ins$i$&$i%n-l C%pe$en'e: no deference to leg b3c rt to vote 4 fo'nd of all other rights

C. ener-l Disen6r-n'/iseen$ Iss&es

;. W%en

a. 5'stifications for enial:

Te6t'al: 17A 'ses refers to male voting pop2 1A mentions race !incl'sio 'ni's% Str'ct'ral: if 17A granted right to vote8 1A s'perfl'o's

9istorical3Originalist: no s'ffrage at fo'nding or ratification of 17A2 17A

conferred civil8 not political rights: ins'fficient political *ill at time ofratification

0olicy: 4 economic dependents2 virt'al representation via h'sbands3other men2

protection against domestic conflictb. Challenges :

;NO< v. 9A00=


2/22

F&nd-en$-l Rig/$s: 2 %6 V%$ing Rig/$s A'$)Disp-r-$e Ip-'$: c'rrent approachH

Correct interpretation of I


3/22

D. #l-'= Dis3En6r-n'/iseen$

1. In$r%d&'$i%n)!is$%r*

a. 1A !1"-$%high level of blac participation in post/CE phaseb. 0ost 1"(" decline: violence8 fra'd8 redistrictingHc. isenfranchising constit'tions: discriminatory criminal disenfranchisement2 poll ta6es2

literacy tests2 'nderstand & e6plain tests2 *hite primariesd. =ffect 4 dramatic & precipito's decline in blac participation

(0. Disen6r-n'/ising C%ns$i$&$i%ns

a. MF=S v. 9A


4/22

a. MO;FFON v. FM9TOOT8 1(-$ %: stries racial gerrymander to e6cl'de blacs from

T'segee8 AF 'nder 1A2 enPoins enforcement of ne* )"/sided fig'redefa'lt to priorb. NK: choice of 1A8 not 17A limits these cases to race8 rather than =0 in general

I. AREA"ION)REAPPOR"IONMEN"

E. OnePers%nOneV%$e+ #A9ER REYNOLDS 9ARC!ER

1,. COLEROVE v. M


5/22

c. Krennan: 101Ie6cl'des cts from s'spicion2 obPective2 simple2 enforceable

F. L%'-l %4ernen$s ener-l Spe'i-l P&rp%se

)$. ener-l Prin'iple+ (P(V reBd /ere 5&ni$ %6 L i$/ gener-l resp%nsi8ili$* -nd pr 6%rl%'-l -66-irs7!AI=

Create S0 from limited grp in first place !e.g. freeholders%J Les

Can limit to specially affected grp8 b't no affirmative right to limitation

Can limit franchise on basis of geography

c. Special 0'rpose Kodies 8 e.g. bar ass+ns same r'le 1#,>

)7. S$-$e J&dges: NO 101I re'irement !E=FFS v. =EA


6/22

I. VRA)FAIR REPRESEN"A"ION)REDIS"RIC"IN

. C%ns$i$&$i%n-l Pre'eden$s

). E9TCO;K v. AIS8 1(#( : &l$ie8er dis$ri'$s &p/eld do not 'nconstit'tionallydil'te blac vote2 blacs losing b3c 4 dems in sea of reps8 not b3c of disc.

)-. E9T= v. G or @members have less opp than other members of the electorate to participate inthe political process and elect representative of their choice.GH Providedabove shall notbe interpreted to re'ire representation proportional to R of pop'lation

1. Application'. "!ORN#UR 4. INLES (1G + &l$ie8er dis$ri'$ s$r&'= &nder VRA>2 ;

6-'$%rs+

Min%ri$* gr%&p s&66i'ien$l* l-rge ge%gr-p/i'-ll* '%p-'$

Min%ri$* gr%&p p%li$i'-ll* '%/esi4e

R-'i-l 8l%' 4%$ing 8* /i$es+ demonstrate by bivariate scattergram

Other Bimmer factors s'pportive of8 b't not essential to voters+ claim>>

9istory of official discrimination


7/22

d. 5O9NSON v. eM2 d%es n%$ ip%se reB $% -?iiKe p%ssi8le %6 in%ri$* dis$ri'$stotality of circ'mstances approach8 foc'sing on proportionality!not necessarily an absol'te defense8 b't corresp bet R of pop & R of dists helpf'l%

e. FDFAC v. CF=;=NTS8 th 1((7 : -$l-rge s*s$e %6 ele'$ing s$-$e &dges &p/eld i64%$ing p-$$ern e?pl-in-8le %n 8-sis %6 p-r$* -66ili-$i%n #OP s/i6$s 8-'= $%

'/-llenger Fimited to P'dicial electionsJ

: reintrod'ction of intent std2 high correlation of race *3 party

f. 9OF=< v. 9AFF8 1((7 : &p/eld single '%ner s*s$e 6%r A '$* g%4ern-n'ebaseline is e6isting system8 in place since 1(1)

Thomas conc'rrence:

Klac infl'ence more important than control2 s*ing gro'p

Segregation into @safeG race/based dists dangero's2 political apartheid

I. err*-nders

21. P-r$is-n err*-nders+

a. #ip-r$is-n err*-nder O9 !MAN=L v. CD;;NMS8 1(#,%

Stevens: introd'ces alternate @traditionalG criteria !see belo*%

b. J&s$i'i-8ili$* !AIS v. KAN=;=


8/22

!Stev3M3K3So't%: no const inP'ry2 this @benignG 'se of race is not the ind *3

*hich 17A concerned

O+Connor: race/conscio's redistricting 'nconst *here @e6cessive and

'nP'stifiableG2 if meets traditional factors !Stevens30o*ell%8 or re'ired by I


9/22

? !Safe 9arbor% : if any state sets 'p mechanism in advance of election for

resolving disp'tes8 and reaches determination - days prior to 1)31"8 Congress*ill not in'ire as to validity of the co'nt

?1 !Competing Slates% : if state sends ) slates of electors8 and if ) ho'ses can

agree *hich to accept then o2 if ) ho'ses disagree8 then *hichever slate isvalidated by highest e6ec'tive official of state *ins

d. Ar$ II >( 'l. 2: each state appoints electors @in s'ch ;anner as the Fegislat're thereofmay directG

,,. Case 1 !KDS9 v. 0AF; K=AC9 CTL2 protest phase %a. F SC: conflict bet*een man'al reco'nt provision & filing deadlines2 resolved by FSC

'sing F constit'tionb. SC: vacate & remand for determination of role played by FSC in r'ling


10/22

a.


11/22

(. C-ndid-$e Pl-'een$ %n Pri-r* #-ll%$ %r C%n4en$i%n

-. D= v. ;ASS=L8 11th 1((-%: &p/eldstate party prevention of candidate from r'nningin its state primary

No sho*ing re+d as to motivation for e6cl'sion

Can be seen as conflict bet*een party in electorate and party Q organization

f. ;OFNA< v. 0OE=


12/22

II. CAMPAIN FINANCE

O. ener-l

7(.


13/22

(. S$-$e C%n$ri8&$i%n Lii$s !NON v. S9


14/22

f. Kriffa'lt 0roposal : !1% reference to candidate2 !)% made *3in defined time period2 !,%s'fficiently large e6p

#. M'C-in Feing%ld >20(20;3: places 'nder =CA limits @election comm'nicationG 4 anycomm'nication referring to candidate made -$ days prior to election8 ,$ days prior to primary8to a'dience incl'ding members of the electorate

R. S%6$ M%ne*

". Kacgro'nda. Shared activities : federal3state elections tae place at same time2 both benefit from party

e6pendit'res other than campaigning8 e.g. MOTI8 voter reg8 literat're8 overhead8 partyads8 etc.

1(#"/#( !=C% national parties can create separate state accts for state campaigns

and shared activities8 & this XX doesn+t need to comply *3 =CA

s/-red -'$i4i$ies pres&ed $% 8e s$-$e rel-$ed

b. Soft XX : 4 XX o'tside of =CA8 ergo not s'bPect to XX or so'rce limits b3c technically notbeing 'sed for @federalG elections

Soft XX 4 Y13, of party system

:1. M'C-inFeing%ld

a. N-$l P-r$* >(0(-3(33+ -ll n-$l p-r$* -'$i4i$* &nder -'$!cannot solicit8 receive8 ordirect XX to another person o'tside of act+s regs%

b. S$-$e Dis$ L%'-l P-r$* >(0(833+ 56eder-l ele'$i%n -'$i4i$*7 in'l&ding -ll s/-red-'$i4i$ies &nder -'$!flips prior pres'mption%

incl'ding @p'blic comm'nicationsG 4 any comm'nications that promote or

s'pport a candidate !goes beyond e6press advocacyGc. 3< costs 4 s'bPect to limitsd. Ta6/=6empt Orgs: parties & entities established by parties can+t raise XX for T=Ose. Officeholders: can+t raise soft XX e6cept if r'nning for state office

S. P&8li' Fin-n'ing

-$. =6isting !=CA% : partial financing of presidential race !for party conventions%no* p'blic XX 'sed as seed XX for conventions

-1. Alternatives:a. ;aine 0roposal: raise minim'm amt of XX8 t'rn it in8 get p'blic financing8 and agree to

spending cap overr'led b3c state reg of fed camp in COO v. M-). ss'es:

a. ='ality: increase W of candidates able to p't 'p @table staesGb. Iiability: have to spend a lot to get to level at *hich demand for nonp'blic XX decreases2

ability to p'blicly finance at level of diminishing marginal ret'rns m'ch lo*er in bigstates & national level

17 of )) emocracy O'tline


15/22

DEMOCRACY"!EMES)QUES"IONS

NSTTDTONAF CO;=T=NC=

!1% Foc/'pJ:

0resent in Kaer8


16/22

!)% ndependent v. Coordinated =6pendit'res

ndependent not reg'lable if by parties !COFO


17/22

!)% Non/racial factors: traditional8 political!,% I


18/22

Kall v. 5ames !1("1%ZSingle P&rp%se %4ernen$-l #%dies I&ne 6r% (pers%n ) (4%$e Ct. declines to e6tend


19/22

=' v. San rancisco Co'nty emocrats !1("(%ZS$-$es -8ili$* $% reg&l-$e P-r$* %rg-niK-$i%n

f party can sho* state reg+n affects interests protects by 1A2 state m'st then sho* that the reg+n is narro*ly

tailored to meet a compelling state interest Ct rePects ban on party endorsements of candidatesZ!1% implicates 1A2 !)% gag r'le is not necessary for stability8

avoiding voter conf'sionHit is inappropriate for a state to @save a party from itself.G Ct rePects r'les re: internal party governanceH not nec+y to re. party participation in elections

irst National Kan of Koston v. Kellotti !1(#"%ZS$-$e Reg.s %n C%rp. Re6erend- E?pendi$&res Ct. thro*s o't ;ass. reg. prohibiting corp.s from maing contrib.s 3 e6pendit'res to campaigns not related to corp. Ct. says !1% stat'te infringes on 1A rights of corp.8 !)% state interests are in avoiding appearance of corr'ption &

protecting shareholders8 b't !,% no corr'ption poss. *3referenda8 and !7% shareholders overprotected !can+t vote tos'pport% and 'nderprotected !no provisions for e6pend.s re: legislation%

'marolo v. Chicago Kd. of =d. !1(($%ZC/i'-g% S'/%%l #d. ele'$i%ns s&8e'$ $% S$ri'$ S'r&$in* Ct. holds that local school co'ncils perform a general governmental f'nction. Therefore their str'ct're !*3 different

n'mbers of representatives for parents8 teachers8 comm'nity members8 etc.% is s'bPect o strict scr'tiny @The administration of schoolsG is a f'ndamental government interest in *hich @all members of societyG have an

interest

I. iles 4. !-rris (10;3 ThePlessy v. Ferguson of =lection Fa*

challenges Alabama reg. scheme8 Ct. says:Equity cannot undertake to enforce political rights.

Ct. maes a Catch/)) style arg'ment re: entangling itself in voter fra'd8 b't basically says that it is po*erless8 on itso*n8 to enfranchise African Americans

Cf. the Ct. in 1($, *3the Ct. in 1(7 emonstrates that dicta in Lic Eo did not s'ffice to mae voting a @'ndamental


20/22


21/22

Citing Momillion for the proposition that sophisticated discrimination is barred P'st as 'nsophisticated discriminationis8 says predictable res'lt of malapportionment is 'nderrepresentation of some voters

Eesberry v. Sanders e6tends this to Congressional districts Permissa$le deviations% or Congression disticts8 close to $R !see archer v. aggett%2 for state legislat'res

some*hat higher !1$R8 1R%


22/22

Smith v. All*right !1(77%ZOverr'les Mrovey8 rePects T em+s e6cl'sion of blacs8 saying that it is @stateactionG per 1A8 citing Classic

Terry v. Adams !1(,%Zn a divided opinion8 the Ct. rePects the right of the 5aybirds to hold a *hites/only pre/primary primary: Klac holds 5aybird primary is an @integralG part of co'nty elections8 and therefore is@state actionG for 1A p'rposes2 ranf'rter finds @state actionG in participation of co'nty officials2 Clar*o'ld find the 5aybirds to be a political party. Dissent*orries: ho* do *e dra*the line bet*een

5aybirds and private press're gro'psJ

Critical for the Ct.s @state actionG reasoning Ehy the move to the 1AJ See Momillion v. Fightfoot cf. Anderson v. ;artin8 *here a Iirginia la* re'iring that ballots list the race of candidates is thro*n o't as

facilitating private discrimination cf. 9olme+s positions in Ni6on v. 9erndon & Miles v. 9arris

Ehite v.

s00 outline law and democracy

Documents