Legitimate Free Federal Grants

Document Sample
Legitimate Free Federal Grants Powered By Docstoc
					CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SELECTION OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS                                                                                       1
       Lucas v. the 44th Gen. Assembly of the State of Colorado 1964       6 to 3                                                               Warren       3
                 Supreme Court adopts the principle of one person, one vote, invalidating districts giving rural voters more voice.

CHAPTER 2: THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE                                                                                                                          16
A.   Constitutional Text                                                                                                                                     20
        Minor v. Happersett                                              1875                                                                   Waite        21
                   Overruled by the 19th Amendment. It is here as a good example of Constitutional interpretation.
        Richardson v. Ramirez                                            1974                                                                   Rehnquist    38
                   Ex-felons can be denied the right to vote by the states.
B.   The Modern Constitutional Framework                                                                                                                     46
        Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections                1959                           Rational Basis Test: Passed             Douglas      46
                   An elections board can require that voters be literate, even in view of the 14th and 17th amendments.
                   This differed from Davis v Schnell in that Davis required the person to understand and explain an article of the federal
                   constitution, which makes it too easy for the registrar to say that similar explanations are valid for one person, and not
                   valid for another. The court said that the statute on its face does not indicate race. As such, it only needed to pass the
                   rational basis test. It seems odd that race (and therefore strict scritiny) wasn't implicated, given the era.
        Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections                            1966                           Rational Basis Test: Failed             Douglas      48
                   Poll taxes are unconstitutional forms of discrimination against the poor. Start of making voting a fundamental right.
                   3 justices felt this did meet the rational basis test
        Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15                      1969     5 to 4                Strict Scrutiny Test: Failed            Warren       52
                   School districts cannot limit voters in school board elections to property owners and parents of schoolchildren.
C.   Constitutional Structure as a Limitation on the Right to Vote                                                                                           72
        Igartua De La Rosa v. United States                              2000                                                                   per curium   74
                   Only citizens empowered by a state are allowed to vote in presidential elections.
                   Puerto Rico is not a state, so although they are US Citizens, they do not have the right to vote in federal elections.
        Adams v. Clinton                                                                                                                        App. Court   77
                   23rd Amendment gave Wash-DC residents right to vote for President, but they still have no voting rep in Congress.
                   This was a challenge to this. The court said that if they want to do this, they will need to amend the US Constitution.
D.   The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement                                                                                                                  90
        Giles v. Harris                                                  1903     6 to 3                                                        Holmes       91
                   Black citizens in Montgomery Alabama were denied the right to register to vote. The court said that this is a political issue
                   for the legislature, and that the Court can’t make a decision which they can’t enforce. (Changed in Brown v Board of Education)
   1 Techniques for Outright Disenfranchisement                                                                                                              101
   2 The White Primary Cases                                                                                                                                 103
        Nixon v. Herndon                                                 1927                                                                   Holmes       103
                   Nixon was denied right to vote in the Texan Dem. primary. This disenfranchised him, as only Dems win in TX.
                   Court decided the TX election rules delegated state authority to political parties, so that is in effect still state action.
        Smith v. Allwright                                               1944                                                                   Reed         105
                   Primaries are essential for determining who will be elected, and so interference with this is interference in the voting process
               Terry v. Adams                                                1953        8 to 1 15th Amendment                                   Black         108
                         The Jaybirds had a primary prior to the Democratic Primary, but blacks were not allowed to be vote in the Jaybird primary.
                         Jaybird primary was private action, but since it determines the outcome of elections, it is considered to be public action.
     3     The Demise of Discretion                                                                                                                            117
     4     Redrawing District Boundaries                                                                                                                       125
               Gomillion v. Lightfoot                                        1960                                                                Frankfurter   125
                         If the primary purpose of the redistricting is to deprive black voters of a pre-existing right to vote within the city,
                         it is unconstitutional under the 15th amendment.
                         If π establishes prima facia disrim case; the state or decisionmaking body must then show lack of racial intent behind decision.
E.         Voter Registration and Participation                                                                                                                129

CHAPTER 3: THE REAPPORTIONMENT REVOLUTION                                                                                                                      141
       Reynolds v. Sims                                       1964                                                            Warren                           162
               One person, one vote. This means that voting districts need to have as near the same number of people as possible.

CHAPTER 4: WHEN ELECTIONS GO BAD - The 2000 Presidential Election in Legal Context                                                                             217
A.   The Federal Interest in Election Procedures                                                                                                               221
   1 State Elections                                                                                                                                           222
         a. Lack of Sufficient Federal Interest                                                                                                                223
         b. Sufficient Federal Interests                                                                                                                       225
               Roe v. Alabama (Roe I)                                        1995                 14th Amendment                             App. Court        226
                         An AL court changed the rules after an election, changing the result. The 11th Circuit overturned the election on the ground
                         that changes in election rules, after the election is complete, violates the rights of legitimate voters.
     2     Distinct Federal Interest in National Elections: U.S. House and Senate Elections                                                                    239
     3     Distinct Federal Interests in National Elections: Presidential Elections                                                                            242
         a. The Electoral College                                                                                                                              242
         b. Art. II and the Role of State Legislatures                                                                                                         244
         c. The Electoral Count Act of 1887                                                                                                                    245
B.         The State Interest in Federal Elections                                                                                                             246
                Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris                2000                                                                 FL S.Court    249
                          Statutory construction interpretation in Bush v Gore.
C.         The Federal Interest Potentially Asserted                                                                                                           262
                Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (Bush I) 2000                                                                         per curium    262
                          The US Supreme Court took issue with the fact that the FL Supreme Court based their decision on the FL State Constitution.
     1     Art. II and "The Independent State Legislature Doctrine"                                                                                            267
                McPherson v. Blacker                                        1892                                                                 Fuller        267
                          Michigan system of selecting electors was challenged. The decision was that the Michigan state legislature had a system of
                          choosing electors, since there wasn’t anything at issue violating the grant given by the US Constitution, it looked fine to them.
     2     Of "Safe Harbors" and the Electoral Count Act                                                                                                       276
     3     The Final Florida Court Decision and the United States Supreme Court Stay                                                                           278
                Bush v. Gore (stay)                                         2000        5 to 4                                                   Scalia        279
                     Court decided to hear the case on the basis of irreparable potential harm to Bush
D.     The Federal Interest Decisively Asserted                                                                                                                     281
           Bush v. Gore                                                2000        5 to 4 Article II, 14th Amendment                                  Scalia        281
                     Court decided that the FL Supreme Court impermissably changed the election laws.
E.     Eight Views of the Cathedral                                                                                                                                 315
F.     The Timing of Federal Court Intervention into Electoral and Similar Litigation                                                                               323
           Growe v. Emison                                             1993                                                                           Scalia        324
                     Federal courts should show comity to state courts in election/redistricting disputes
           Siegel v. LePore                                            2000                 1st & 14th Amendments                                     Dist. Court   333
                     As there was no constitutional issue, the court would not step in and halt the recounts

CHAPTER 5: THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES                                                                                                                            345
A.   The Ballot: Political Parties as Gatekeepers                                                                                                                   348
   1 Restrictions on Whom Voters Can Vote For                                                                                                                       352
         Burdick v. Takushi                                              1992       6 to 3               Intermediate Scrutiny Test: Passed White                   352
                   States can choose to not allow write in votes if they have a rational basis for the decision.
                   Hawaii's lax ballot access restrictions kept this from being a Strict Scrutiny review.
   2 Restrictions on Who Appears on the Ballot                                                                                                                      362
         Bullock v. Carter                                               1972      14th Am.           Closely Scrutinized' Rational Basis Test: Failed Burger       363
                   There is no fundamental right to run as a candidate for elective public office
                   However, as candidates' and voters' rights are inextricably bound, they do have standing to assert voters' const. rights
                   Since the state did not justify the need for the filing fees, they held it violated equal protection of the laws.
B.   Who Can Participate in a Party's Activities?                                                                                                                   373
   1 Both the Party and the State Seek to Exclude Citizen X from Participating                                                                                      374
         Nader v. Schaffer                                               1976                  Association Strict Scrutiny Test: Passed                USSC Aff'd   374
                   Political parties can restrict their primaries to member-only primaries.
                   Of course, per Nixon v Herndon excluding people who want to be in the party is nigh impossible.
         Duke v. Massey                                                  1996                  1st Amendment - Freedom of Association                  App. Court   379
                   Political parties can take names off of their primary ballot.
                   States not allowed to save parties from themselves (can’t regulate leadership to protect rank and file).
         Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz                              1997                                                                          TX Supr Ct   382
                   Exclusion of Log Cabin Republican booth. Internal party affairs are not state action, nor are party platforms.
                   The idea of parties as public is in tension with the need to assure that they maintain basic autonomy from the state.
   2 The Party Seeks to Exclude Citizen X from Participating but the State Demands that the Party Permit Him to Participate                                         386
         Democratic Party of the United States v. LaFollette             1981       6 to 3 Association Strict Scrutiny Test: Passed & Failed Stewart                386
                   Wisconsin can indeed have an open primary, but the national party can disregard the results.
         California Democratic Party v. Jones                            2000                  Association Strict Scrutiny Test: Failed                Scalia       391
                   Enforced blanket primaries are unconstitutional, as it limits the party’s right to associate
                   Not narrowly tailored to meet state's interests
   3 The Party Wishes to Permit Citizen X to Participate but the State Demands His Exclusion                                                                        404
         Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut                     1986                  1st Amendment - Freedom of Association       Marshall    404
                    Political parties can open their primaries to all eligible voters, the state cannot prevent this.
C.    When Can the Government Regulate a Party's Internal Affairs?                                                                                      410
         Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee         1989                             Strict
                                                                                               1st Amendment Scrutiny Test: Failed          Marshall    411
                    This was an attempt to wrest control from central party leadership and give it to the party members
                    A state cannot justify regulating a party’s internal affairs without showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure
                    the elections are orderly and fair. Undue restrictions on internal party structure violate free speech & association.
D.    Does the Existing Legal Regime Improperly Entrench the Existing Two-Party System?                                                                 417
  1   Challenges to Ballot Access by Independent and Third-Party Candidates                                                                             418
         Munro v. Socialist Workers Party                                1986                                Flexible Scrutiny Test: Passed White       422
                    States can prevent small parties (<1% in primary) access to the ballot.
                    Interpretted as states right to limit the ballot. The easy ballot access laws allowed the use of the flexible standard.
  2   The Interaction of Ballot Access and Other Electoral Regulations In Perpetuating the Two-Party System                                             427
         Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party                           1997                                Flexible Scrutiny Test: Passed Rehnquist   427
                    Court upheld Minnesota's anti-fusion law. Was not a substantial burden on access to the ballot.
                    Not allowing the second nominating party to appear on ballot is not a significant infringement on right to associate.
  3   The Interaction of Access to the Electoral Arena and the Perpetuation of the Two-Party System                                                     436
         Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 1998                   6 to 3 Speech        Rational Basis Test: Passed       Kennedy     436
                    Public TV debate to be a nonpublic forum and that the exclusion of a candidate on the grounds he had little or no
                    chance of winning was a viewpoint neutral decision consistent with the First Amendment.

CHAPTER 6: MONEY AND POLITICS                                                                                                                           449
A.  The First Amendment Background                                                                                                                      450
B.  Policy Considerations                                                                                                                               456
C.  Buckley v. Valeo                                                                                                                                    457
                   Government imposed limits on contributions are acceptable
                   Government imposed limits on expenditures are not acceptable
D.  Contribution Limits                                                                                                                                 460
        Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC                        2000       6 to 3 1st & 14th Amendments                              Souter      460
                   States can regulate contributions to political parties, and need not peg the $ value to Buckley .
E.  Expenditure Limits                                                                                                                                  474
        Co. Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC               1996       7 to 2                                                    Breyer      474
                   Independent expenditures by political parties are protected by the first amendment.
        FEC v. Co. Republican Federal Campaign Committee               2001       5 to 4                                                    Souter      487
                   Expenditures by a political party that are done in coordination with a candidate’s campaign are not allowable.
                   Expenditures done by a political party that are done independently are acceptable.
F.  Do Concerns over Corruption Justify Campaign Finance Regulations?                                                                                   499
        First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti                      1978       5 to 4                                                    Powell      499
                   Corporations have a right to spend money to fight legislation outside their immediate core business interests
G.  Equality and Liberty in Political Campaigns                                                                                                         513
         Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce                        1990                    1st & 14th Amendments                            Marshall     515
                    States may forbid corporations to spend money on political matters if it is not from a segregated fund.
H.    Has Campaign Finance Regulation Worked?                                                                                                                524
I.    A Caution on Public Financing                                                                                                                          526
J.    Proposals for Reform                                                                                                                                   527
         Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices                   1st Amendment                                    App. Court   529
                    π: Maine’s public finance law is so beneficial to those taking it that it is essentially coercive (& therefore non-voluntary).
                    Ct: If candidates accept more restrictions than Buckley, it seems legal, and there were significant downfalls to it as well.
                    Court determined it was non-coercive and voluntary, so no issue.
K.    The New Frontier: Issue Advocacy                                                                                                                       533

CHAPTER 7: PRECLEARANCE AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT                                                                                                            546
A.   Congressional Power to Enact the Special Provisions of the Voting Rights Act                                                                            548
B.   What is a "Covered Change"?                                                                                                                             571
        Beer v United States, 425 U.S. 130                           1976                                                                                    N/A
                  For areas requiring preclearance of redistricting plans under the Voting Rights Act, any plan that was less likely to elect
                  a minority candidate than the previously approved plan could be rejected as a retrogression of the minority position.
C.   What Constitutes a Discriminatory Purpose or Effect?                                                                                                    598
   1 The Discriminatory "Effect" and the Concept of Retrogression                                                                                            599

CHAPTER 8: Majority Rule & Minority Vote Dilution
       City of Mobile v. Bolden                                      1980                                                                                    692
                 There is no constitutional right to proportional representation.

CHAPTER 9: RACIAL VOTE DILUTION UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT                                                                                                  746
       Thornburg v. Gingles                                      1986                                                                                        748
               Voting districts cannot be drawn to dilute the minority vote within the district in a discriminatory fashion.

CHAPTER 10: REDISTRICTING AND REPRESENTATION                                                                                                          867
       Gaffney v. Cummings                                          1973                                                                              869
                Voting districts can be drawn to attempt to achieve a “rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the State”.
       Shaw v. Reno                                                 1993                                                                              897
                Voting districts cannot be drawn for the main purpose of enhancing the minority vote.
       Hunt v. Cromartie                                            2001                                                                              946
                Race can be a factor in redistricting, as long as it is not the controlling factor.
                (In Easley the primary factor was redistricting for political reasons, which is not a violation of the equal protection clause.)

CHAPTER 11: DIRECT DEMOCRACY                                                                                                                                 982
A.  Constitutional Underpinnings and Concerns                                                                                                                983
       Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon1912                                                                               White        985
                       Courts cannot deny states the right to enact direct democracy measures (no jurisdiction).
B.       Direct Democracy and Rights of Political Participation                                                                                                   993
     1   Popular Lawmaking and Unpopular Groups                                                                                                                   993
             Hunter v. Erickson                                           1968                             Strict
                                                                                              14th AmendmentScrutiny Test: Failed               White            993
                       Akron amended city charter, through referendum, to prevent any fair housing ordinance unless approved by city voters.
                       This violated equal protection, as it places special burdens on minorities within the government process (requires an extra step)
             Evans v. Romer                                               1996                             Rational Basis Test: Failed                          1001
                       Co. Const. was amended to prevent passage of anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexual orientation.
                       This violated equal protection, as it places special burdens on minorities within the government process (requires an extra step)
     2   Popular Lawmaking and Problems of Entrenchment                                                                                                          1011
             U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton                                 1995       5 to 4                                                     Stevens         1011
                       If a candidate had 3 terms in the House, or 2 terms in the Senate, they could no be printed on the ballot (although it could be written in).
                       The court said constitution sets up uniform national system, such a change would require a Constitutional Amendment.
             Cook v. Gralike                                              2001      5 supp                                                      Stevens         1026
                       Mo. Attempt to put "disregarded … term limits" on the ballot after candidates name if they ran too many times.
                       Regulation authorized by Constitution's Elections Clause grants power to states over procedural regulations for elections but
                       not power to influence elections.

CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVE DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURES                                                                                                              1089
A.     Types of Electoral Systems                                                                                                                          1094
B.     Cumulative Voting                                                                                                                                   1099
           Dillard v. Chilton County Board of Education and Chilton County Commission                                                       Dist Court     1102
                       Court decided a cumulative voting system was an acceptable solution for a VRA violation.
   Richard H. Pildes and Kristen A. Donoghue, Cumulative Voting in the United States                                                                       1106
           McCoy v. Chicago Heights                                       1998                                                              Dist Court     1116
                       Judge came up with a plan different from what either party wanted (see Harper v Chicago Heights ).
           Harper v. Chicago Heights                                      2000                                                              App. Court     1121
                       original court decision was incorrect as the court had not gone through the entire list of options before coming up with their result.
           Cane v. Worcester County Md.                                   1995                                                              Dist Court     1124
                       Court imposed districted cumulative voting plan after VRA violation where acceptable plan had not been generated.
C.     Preference Voting or the Single Transferable Vote                                                                                                   1132
   Richard Briffault: Lani Guinier and the Dilemmas of American Democracy                                                                                  1133
D.     Limited Voting
           McGhee v. Granville County Board of Commissioners              1988                                                              App. Court     1143
                       With §2VRA violations, a court should give the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise the remedial plan.
E.     The Lot Versus the Election                                                                                                                         1151
F.     The History of Territorial Districting                                                                                                              1156
G.     Debate between Majoritarian Systems & Proportional Representation                                                                                   1160
H.     Consociational Democracy                                                                                                                            1168
Historically, items that impair a fundamental right, the strict scrutiny test is used.
All other laws, which do not impair such rights, need to pass a rational basis test.
The third test, which is almost exclusively used for sex discrimination tests, are the “intermediate basis” test,
because the 14th amendment does not mean that women are fundamentally equal per the Constitution.

On voting questions, where discrimination is not an issue, and the burden is light, an "intermediate scrutiny" test
 The court has said that it is the party though, and not the state, that makes the call of whether it is "light" (really,
Note, which standard they choose is in many ways due to the advocacy of the lawyers before them.

Description: Legitimate Free Federal Grants document sample