Civil-Rights Law
Ledbetter in Congress: The Limits of a Narrow Legislative Override
117 Yale L.J. 971 (2008).
Race and Democratic Contestation
117 Yale L.J. 734 (2008). As the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) passes its fortieth anniversary and faces upcoming constitutional challenges to its recent renewal, a growing number of liberals and conservatives, once united in support, now share deep reservations about it. This Article argues that the growing skepticism about the VRA and majority-minority districting is misguided by a simplistic and impoverished account of electoral competition in American politics. Electoral competition should be judged with reference to the ultimate ends it is intended to produce— more democratic debate, greater civic engagement and participation, and richer political discourse—all of which are generated by a deeper first-order competition among political leaders that this Article describes as “democratic contestation.” This Article offers democratic contestation, in place of electoral competition, as a basic value in the law of democracy and as the foundation for a new theory that helps reconcile approaches to race, representation, and political competition. A theory of democratic contestation shifts the normative focus from the pluralist absorption with which groups get what from politics to a new focus on the tenor and quality of political competition among leaders. When viewed through a theory of democratic contestation, the VRA is crucially procompetitive in the broader sense of democratic contestation. By carving out safe majority-minority districts, the VRA may break the discursive stasis of racial polarization in which politics revolve around the single axis of race. A theory of democratic contestation reveals how majority-minority districts may energize the process of democratic contestation and enable an internal discourse of ideas that moves beyond the racially polarized divide, an otherwise inadvisable move in the face of racially polarized opposition. A theory of democratic contestation thus demands a reevaluation of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in LULAC v. Perry and provides a new understanding of the renewed VRA going forward in the modern world of national partisan competition.
The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act
117 Yale L.J. 174 (2007). In the summer of 2006, Congress reauthorized the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) with a unanimous vote in the Senate and with limited opposition in the House of Representatives. The veneer of bipartisanship that outsiders perceived in the final vote glossed over serious disagreements between the parties over the meaning of the central provision of the new VRA, which prohibits voting laws that “diminish the ability” of minority citizens “to elect their preferred candidates of choice.” Those disagreements came to the surface in a fractured Senate Committee Report released only after Congress had passed the law. This Article describes the unprecedented legislative history of this law, and the political and constitutional constraints that led the law to take the form that it did. It also presents an interpretation of the new retrogression standard that avoids the partisan bias of alternatives while emphasizing the importance of racially polarized voting to the constitutionality and meaning of this new law. It urges that the new law be read as preventing redistricting plans that reduce the aggregated probability across districts of the election of candidates preferred by the minority community and disfavored by whites.
Re-Justifying the Fair Cross Section Requirement: Equal Representation and Enfranchisement in the American Criminal Jury
116 Yale L.J. 1568 (2007) This Note proposes a new justification for the fair cross section (FCS) requirement governing criminal jury composition. While the Supreme Court has defended the requirement by invoking demographic conceptions of the jury’s legitimacy, many scholars have observed that this approach is at odds with contemporary jury law and practice. This Note argues that courts should instead defend the FCS requirement as a means of ensuring that eligible participants are included in the jury franchise. Besides solving an intractable doctrinal puzzle, an enfranchisement-based approach draws attention to ways in which widespread juror selection practices exclude underrepresented groups and thereby undermine the jury’s democratic character.
Reconstructing Section 5: A Post-Katrina Proposal for Voting Rights Act Reform
116 Yale L.J. 1116 (2007) Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—the preclearance provision that is the most potent weapon in the nation’s civil rights arsenal—quietly suffered an unexpected defeat in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The “static benchmarking test” used to administer section 5 failed to fulfill a core VRA mandate: the preservation of minority political power. This Note provides the first critical account of this failure and argues that it transcends the specifics of Katrina. The Note then proposes a narrowly tailored doctrinal “fix” to resurrect section 5’s enforcement powers after a disaster.
Equal Educational Opportunity and the Federal Government: A Response to Goodwin Liu
Federal Nagging: How Congress Should Promote Equity and Common High Standards in Public Schools
Education, Equality, and National Citizenship
116 Yale L.J. 330 (2006) For disadvantaged children in substandard schools, the recent success of educational adequacy lawsuits in state courts is a welcome development. But the potential of this legal strategy to advance a national goal of equal educational opportunity is limited by a sobering and largely neglected fact: the most significant component of educational inequality across the nation is not within states but between states. Despite the persistence of this inequality and its disparate impact on poor and minority students, the problem draws little policy attention and has evaded our constitutional radar. This Article argues that the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes and obligates Congress to ensure a meaningful floor of educational opportunity throughout the nation. The argument focuses on the Amendment's opening words, the guarantee of national citizenship. This guarantee does more than designate a legal status. Together with Section 5, it obligates the national government to secure the full membership, effective participation, and equal dignity of all citizens in the national community. Through a novel historical account of major proposals for federal education aid between 1870 and 1890, I show that constitutional interpreters outside of the courts understood the Citizenship Clause to be a font of substantive guarantees that Congress has the power and duty to enforce. This history of legislative constitutionalism provides a robust instantiation of the social citizenship tradition in our constitutional heritage. It also leaves a rich legacy that informs the contemporary unmet duty of Congress to ensure educational adequacy for equal citizenship.
The South Dakota Referendum on Abortion: Lessons from a Popular Vote on a Controversial Right
Civil Rights Litigation and Social Reform
[Editor's Note: Civil Rights Litigation and Social Reform is a Response to Kenneth W. Mack, The Myth of Brown?, Yale L.J. (The Pocket Part), Nov. 2005, http://www.thepocketpart.org/2005/11/mack.html.]
Equal Justice-Same Vision in a New Day
[Editor's Note: Equal Justice—Same Vision in a New Day is a Response to Kenneth W. Mack, The Myth of Brown?, Yale L.J. (The Pocket Part), Nov. 2005, http://www.thepocketpart.org/2005/11/mack.html.]