冬天的投票权法案:超级法规的死亡

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2377470
G. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
{"title":"冬天的投票权法案:超级法规的死亡","authors":"G. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2377470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Voting Rights Act, the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand the voting rights questions of today. Voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and never to return. If so, we need to figure out what, if anything, can, will, or should replace it. But before figuring out where to go from here, we need to first understand how we arrived at the moment of the VRA’s disintegration so as not to repeat the mistakes of the not too distant past. In this article we argue that the VRA is dying because the consensus over the existence and persistence of racial discrimination in voting has dissolved. We outline three paths for the future of voting rights policy: rebuilding a new consensus over the racial discrimination model; forging a new consensus over what we call an autonomy model; or reconceiving voting rights in universal terms.","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"100 1","pages":"1389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a Superstatute\",\"authors\":\"G. Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2377470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Voting Rights Act, the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand the voting rights questions of today. Voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and never to return. If so, we need to figure out what, if anything, can, will, or should replace it. But before figuring out where to go from here, we need to first understand how we arrived at the moment of the VRA’s disintegration so as not to repeat the mistakes of the not too distant past. In this article we argue that the VRA is dying because the consensus over the existence and persistence of racial discrimination in voting has dissolved. We outline three paths for the future of voting rights policy: rebuilding a new consensus over the racial discrimination model; forging a new consensus over what we call an autonomy model; or reconceiving voting rights in universal terms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iowa Law Review\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"1389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iowa Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2377470\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iowa Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2377470","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

美国历史上最成功的民权法案——《投票权法案》(Voting Rights Act)正在消亡。在最近的谢尔比县判决中,美国最高法院表示,长期以来被视为最初颁布的《投票法》基础的反歧视模式,不再是理解今天投票权问题的最佳方式。投票权法律和政策正处于转型的关键时刻。很可能的情况是,我们曾经知道的超级法规VRA已经不复存在,而且永远不会回来。如果是这样,我们需要弄清楚,如果有的话,什么可以,将会,或者应该取代它。但在弄清楚下一步该怎么走之前,我们需要首先了解我们是如何到达VRA解体的那一刻的,以免重复不久以前的错误。在本文中,我们认为投票法正在消亡,因为关于投票中存在和持续存在种族歧视的共识已经消失。我们为投票权政策的未来勾勒出三条路径:在种族歧视模式上重建新的共识;就我们所说的自治模式达成新的共识;或者以普遍的方式重新考虑投票权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a Superstatute
The Voting Rights Act, the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand the voting rights questions of today. Voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and never to return. If so, we need to figure out what, if anything, can, will, or should replace it. But before figuring out where to go from here, we need to first understand how we arrived at the moment of the VRA’s disintegration so as not to repeat the mistakes of the not too distant past. In this article we argue that the VRA is dying because the consensus over the existence and persistence of racial discrimination in voting has dissolved. We outline three paths for the future of voting rights policy: rebuilding a new consensus over the racial discrimination model; forging a new consensus over what we call an autonomy model; or reconceiving voting rights in universal terms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1915 as the Iowa Law Bulletin, the Iowa Law Review has served as a scholarly legal journal, noting and analyzing developments in the law and suggesting future paths for the law to follow. Since 1935, students have edited and have managed the Law Review, which is published five times annually. The Law Review ranks high among the top “high impact” legal periodicals in the country, and its subscribers include legal practitioners and law libraries throughout the world.
期刊最新文献
Overlitigating Corporate Fraud: An Empirical Examination Minors and Digital Asset Succession Against Adversary Prosecution The Dormant Commerce Clause as a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction Assessing the Viability of Race-Neutral Alternatives in Law School Admissions
×
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