From Litigation, Legislation: A Review of Brian Landsberg's Free at Last to Vote: The Alabama Origins of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2008-06-20 DOI:10.2307/20454676
Cristina M. Rodríguez
{"title":"From Litigation, Legislation: A Review of Brian Landsberg's Free at Last to Vote: The Alabama Origins of the 1965 Voting Rights Act","authors":"Cristina M. Rodríguez","doi":"10.2307/20454676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the early 1960s, Brian Landsberg and his colleagues at the Department of Justice challenged the discriminatory practices of Alabama's local voting officials, who manipulated registration requirements to prevent blacks from joining the voting rolls. In Free at Last to Vote: The Alabama Origins of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Landsberg gives these lawyers their historical due. He demonstrates how the cases they brought helped shape the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Though Landsberg's account ends with the dawn of the VRA, the importance of the DOJ litigators' work ultimately transcended is impact on the original statute. The history Landsberg tells underscores that when remedies migrate from litigation to legislation, they establish a framework that subsequent reformers can use to address new challenges. This Essay demonstrates this dynamic. It highlights how the DOJ lawyers provoked a paradigm shift that ultimately supported the extension of the VRA to language minorities, giving rise to the bilingual ballot. Though much separates 1960s Alabama from 1970s Texas, the time and place that produced the VRA's extensions, the two historical moments are connected by principles of great significance to contemporary conceptions of democracy. This same comparison, however, also demonstrates that remedies targeted at the problems of one group may not translate well to the context of another group. In addition to providing an opportunity for reflection on the far-reaching consequences of the DOJ litigation, then, Landsberg's work reminds us of the need to look beyond existing frameworks when addressing contemporary challenges to equality in the political process.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"473 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20454676","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In the early 1960s, Brian Landsberg and his colleagues at the Department of Justice challenged the discriminatory practices of Alabama's local voting officials, who manipulated registration requirements to prevent blacks from joining the voting rolls. In Free at Last to Vote: The Alabama Origins of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Landsberg gives these lawyers their historical due. He demonstrates how the cases they brought helped shape the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Though Landsberg's account ends with the dawn of the VRA, the importance of the DOJ litigators' work ultimately transcended is impact on the original statute. The history Landsberg tells underscores that when remedies migrate from litigation to legislation, they establish a framework that subsequent reformers can use to address new challenges. This Essay demonstrates this dynamic. It highlights how the DOJ lawyers provoked a paradigm shift that ultimately supported the extension of the VRA to language minorities, giving rise to the bilingual ballot. Though much separates 1960s Alabama from 1970s Texas, the time and place that produced the VRA's extensions, the two historical moments are connected by principles of great significance to contemporary conceptions of democracy. This same comparison, however, also demonstrates that remedies targeted at the problems of one group may not translate well to the context of another group. In addition to providing an opportunity for reflection on the far-reaching consequences of the DOJ litigation, then, Landsberg's work reminds us of the need to look beyond existing frameworks when addressing contemporary challenges to equality in the political process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从诉讼,立法:对布莱恩·兰茨伯格的《最终自由投票:1965年投票权法案的阿拉巴马起源》的回顾
20世纪60年代初,司法部的布莱恩·兰茨伯格(Brian Landsberg)和他的同事们对阿拉巴马州当地选举官员的歧视性做法提出了质疑,这些官员操纵登记要求,阻止黑人加入投票名单。在《终于可以自由投票:1965年选举权法案的阿拉巴马起源》一书中,兰德斯伯格给了这些律师应有的历史责任。他展示了他们提起的案件如何帮助形成了1965年具有里程碑意义的《投票权法案》。虽然兰茨伯格的叙述以VRA的诞生结束,但司法部诉讼律师工作的重要性最终超越了对原始法规的影响。兰茨伯格讲述的历史强调,当补救措施从诉讼转向立法时,它们就建立了一个框架,供后来的改革者用来应对新的挑战。本文展示了这种动态。它凸显了美国司法部的律师如何引发了一种范式转变,这种转变最终支持将VRA扩展到语言少数群体,从而引发了双语投票。尽管20世纪60年代的阿拉巴马州和70年代的德克萨斯州在时间和地点上有很大的不同,但这两个历史时刻通过对当代民主概念具有重要意义的原则联系在一起。然而,同样的比较也表明,针对一个群体问题的补救措施可能无法很好地适用于另一个群体。除了提供一个机会来反思司法部诉讼的深远影响之外,Landsberg的工作还提醒我们,在解决政治过程中对平等的当代挑战时,需要超越现有的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1