DDI-CJ-Equal-Protection-Add-Ons

DDI-CJ-Equal-Protection-Add-Ons - CJ Abortion Aff Abe and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CJ Abortion Aff Dartmouth 2K9 Abe and Zhen 2 1 Equal Protection Add-ons Index Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
CJ Abortion Aff Dartmouth 2K9 Abe and Zhen 2 2 Vote Dilution Add-on The intent standard allows for voter dilution to continue, despite Congressional action McLoughlin, 06 (Luke P. McLoughlin- Law Clerk to the Honorable Marjorie O. Rendell, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; J.D., 2005, New York University School of Law. “SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND CITY OF BOERNE: THE CONTINUITY, PROXIMITY, AND TRAJECTORY OF VOTE-DILUTION STANDARDS”. Vermont Law School Vermont Law Review Fall, 2006 31 Vt. L. Rev. 39. ) Though the Court in Gomillion v. Lightfoot invalidated on Fifteenth Amendment grounds a district scheme that today would be called vote dilution on the basis of race, n6 Congress in 1965 created a statutory remedy for vote dilution in the form of the VRA. n7 Via amendments to the Act in 1982, Congress altered the standard by which vote dilution would be proven, widening the possibility of relief. n8 The 1982 Amendments to the [*41] VRA-portions of which were opposed by Roberts in his memoranda-offered broader protection than the Court had interpreted the VRA to provide in City of Mobile v. Bolden, decided just two years earlier . n9 The 1982 Amendments made clear that-contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1965 Act in City of Mobile- proof of discriminatory intent was not required for vote-dilution claims to succeed . n10 Whereas the constitutional standard for vote dilution (a standard left undisturbed by the 1982 Amendments) required proof of discriminatory intent and effect, all that was required under the 1982 Amendments was that litigants demonstrate by the totality of circumstances that "the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation." n11 The creation of a broad avenue of relief under the VRA essentially eliminated the claims of "unconstitutional" minority vote dilution. The practice of seeking relief under the statute instead of the Constitution quickly became the norm. But a variety of political events and jurisprudential factors have given the constitutional strand of vote dilution renewed significance. What is unconstitutional vote dilution? As a legal concept it has gone unused for nearly a quarter of a century when used to describe the dilution of voting power on the basis of race. The VRA's more robust protections [*42] have for years made claims of unconstitutional vote dilution unnecessary. Meanwhile, while the term "unconstitutional vote dilution" has lain dormant in the context of minority vote dilution, vote dilution under the VRA came to occupy nearly the entirety of the vote-dilution jurisprudence. The result is that vote dilution today is understood almost entirely through the cases interpreting the 1982 Amendments, and the concept of unconstitutional vote dilution, a harm requiring proof of discriminatory purpose and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 15

DDI-CJ-Equal-Protection-Add-Ons - CJ Abortion Aff Abe and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online