16885 research outputs found
Sort by
You Can\u27t Have Your Vote and Dilute It Too: Closing the Voting Rights Act Loophole in Gerrymandering Claims
Get PDFThe problem with creating and enforcing redistricting standards arises poignantly in racial gerrymandering cases that involve VRA section 2 compliance. In many ways, the rights that the Equal Protection Clause seeks to protect are at odds with the rights that section 2 seeks to protect. On the one hand, equal protection asserts a certain color-blindness, an interest in minimizing the focus on race and, in doing so, maximizing equality for all. On the other hand, the VRA suggests, and in fact requires, line-drawers keep at least one eye on race when drawing lines.
These opposing rights create a tension, which is enhanced by the tests and standards that courts have implemented to enforce both rights. Consistent with the color-blind aims of equal protection, in gerrymandering claims, a court’s first inquiry is into race predominance— the extent to which it appears that line-drawers primarily considered race in their drawing of the lines. In addressing section 2 claims, on the other hand, a court’s primary inquiry is into the outcomes and effects of the district on racial minorities. Put simply, equal protection demands that line-drawers do not pay attention to race; the VRA demands that they do. This tension creates a potential loophole—a situation in which line-drawers can assert compliance with section 2, but in fact dilute the minority vote by drawing a racial gerrymander. In practice, this looks like line-drawers creating a district in which there are “too many” voters of color.2 In creating the district, the line-drawers may assert that they were forced to draw the lines as they did to comply with the VRA’s requirements. In reality, they may have intentionally or inadvertently “diluted” minority voting strength by “packing” voters of color in one district (thereby robbing the voters of the opportunity to make their voices heard across the state).
This Note analyzes the loophole as a consequence of courts enforcing the “competing” rights that the Equal Protection Clause and the VRA protect. It contemplates the problems that these consequences pose and proposes a new framework for courts to use when they approach these cases
Center for Legal Aid and Regional Development in Pristina, Kosovo
No full textCaitlin Parets [1L] will be working with the Center for Legal Aid and Regional Development in Pristina, Kosovo. CLARD provides free legal assistance to marginalized and vulnerable populations to foster social and economic inclusion, spread awareness and facilitate better access to justice
Central and Eastern European Law Institute in Prague, Czech Republic
No full textFrederick La Violette [1L] will be working with the Central and Eastern European Law Institute in Prague, the Czech Republic. The Institute works with judges and lawyers to build effective legal systems with just processes and foster anti-corruption efforts. Fred will help facilitate programs to educate judiciaries and assist CEELI\u27s anti-corruption mission through research, communications and programming
American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative in Washington, D.C.
No full textAlexa Grunow [1L] will work with the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s Eastern Europe/Central Asia bureau. She will conduct research and present findings on current events, trends, and technical thematic areas of concern and will help coordinate project activities in Central Asia
Open Development Cambodia in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
No full textAndrew Coccoli [2L] will intern with Open Development Cambodia in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. ODC is an organization that aggregates data and publishes research on the environment, economy, and government of Cambodia for the public interest. This summer Open Development Cambodia will host the Cambodia ICT Camp 2022, a series of immersive workshops focusing on the open data movement, data protection and digital rights, strengthening freedom of expression, and cyber norms in the ASEAN region
Wolf Law Library: First Floor Reading Room (December 2022)
No full textIn December 2022, the first floor reading room was remodeled. This image shows the west side, looking out into the parking lot.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libraryhistory/1037/thumbnail.jp
Constitutional Memories
Get PDFMany arguments in constitutional law invoke collective memory. Collective memory is what a group—for example, a religion, a profession, a people, or a nation—remembers and forgets about its past. This combination of remembering and forgetting helps constitute the group’s identity and structures its values and its commitments. Precisely because memory is selective, it may or may not correspond to the best account of historical facts.
The use of collective memory in constitutional argument is constitutional memory. It shapes people’s views about what the law means and why people have authority. Lawyers and judges continually invoke and construct memory; judicial decisions both rely on constitutional memory and produce constitutional memory.
What is remembered and what is erased has powerful normative effects. It shapes our understanding of who we are and how things came to be; what is traditional and what is an innovation; who has committed wrongs and who has been wronged; what we owe to others and what they owe to us. Memory provides resources for understanding the world around us and assigning praise and blame. What is erased from memory, by contrast, can make no claims on us.
Part I of this Article describes the phenomenon of collective memory, the ideological effects of remembering and forgetting, and the role of memory entrepreneurs in telling stories about the past. Part II explains how constitutional memory shapes constitutional interpretation, and how arguments from precedent, original meaning, and tradition rely on combinations of memory and erasure. Part III argues that, in constitutional construction, we should employ an expansive conception of memory, attending to the ideas and experiences of persons and groups left out of formal constitution making, as well as social and political movements that have shaped the American constitutional tradition.
This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction
Jail Health and Early Release Practices
Get PDFLocal jails in the United States incarcerate millions of people each year. The COVID-19 pandemic made jail health a pressing public health concern nationally, where releasing individuals from jails occurred across the country in order to prevent pandemic spread. But releases also faced substantial resistance and exposed long-standing challenges in delivering adequate healthcare in jail settings. People in jail have substantially higher levels of medical need than individuals in the general population, with large numbers having serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders. Further, overcrowded conditions and poor healthcare standards and delivery make jails harmful to those already-vulnerable people. What means exist to protect individuals whose health would suffer in jail? Constitutional standards under the Eighth Amendment are highly deferential to jail administrators, nor is there substantial state or local level regulation of jail health. However, more informal mechanisms do exist, and they may be more responsive to health-based needs than constitutional or legal rights. This Article describes insights from qualitative interviews with jail medical staff in four states, to explore what challenges face delivery of healthcare, but more specifically, when health-based needs require counsel releasing individuals from jail. The Article describes widespread informal and unwritten mechanisms for health-based releases from jails. The Article will present the data and how such practices have implications for reforming the legal rules surrounding jail healthcare
