Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Posted: June 25, 2013

Supreme Court: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision setting forth the formula for determining the jurisdictions subject to federal pre-clearance requirements. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion, which states that Congress may draft a new formula based on current conditions. Justice Thomas concurred while Justice Ginsberg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.

Commentary

Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test

Edward B. Foley

A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.

more commentary...

In the News

This is why US election ballots routinely go missing

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in USA Today about the prevalence of missing election ballots.

"Most of the time, it just goes unreported because it doesn't affect the result," Tokaji said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Finds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims to be Non-Justiciable Political Questions

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The opinion resolved disputes originating in North Carolina and Maryland, in the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

more info & analysis...

Related Commentary

Huefner - The Perils of Voting by Mail
Foley - Of X-Rays, CT Scans, and Gerrymanders
Foley - The Oral Argument in the Gerrymandering Case: Questions That Could Matter
Foley - The Missing Link in Gerrymandering Jurisprudence
Foley - The Vare Precedent in the Senate—and Its Relevance to the Trump-Russia Inquiry

more commentary...

Related Information & Analysis

more info & analysis...

Related Current Litigation

People First of Alabama v. Merrill

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar