重建第五节:卡特里娜飓风后的投票权法案改革建议

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-03-01 DOI:10.2307/20455751
Damian T. Williams
{"title":"重建第五节:卡特里娜飓风后的投票权法案改革建议","authors":"Damian T. Williams","doi":"10.2307/20455751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; University of Cambridge, M.Phil. 2003; Harvard University, A.B. 2002. I am deeply indebted to Professors Owen Fiss and Heather Gerken who both inspired and challenged me to develop this Note, and to Professors Dennis Curtis and Robert Solomon who directed me in the Hurricane Katrina Clinic. Many thanks to Marie Boyd, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Kristen Clarke-Avery, Natalie Hershlag, Sia Sanneh, Robert Scott, and Katherine Wiltenburg Todrys for their incisive comments and edits. Finally, I dedicate this Note to the memory of my sister, Tiffani Simone Williams, who I miss every day. WILLIAMS_11-12-06_FORMATTEDFORSC1 3/14/2007 4:37:11 PM reconstructing section 5","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconstructing Section 5: A Post-Katrina Proposal for Voting Rights Act Reform\",\"authors\":\"Damian T. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455751\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; University of Cambridge, M.Phil. 2003; Harvard University, A.B. 2002. I am deeply indebted to Professors Owen Fiss and Heather Gerken who both inspired and challenged me to develop this Note, and to Professors Dennis Curtis and Robert Solomon who directed me in the Hurricane Katrina Clinic. Many thanks to Marie Boyd, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Kristen Clarke-Avery, Natalie Hershlag, Sia Sanneh, Robert Scott, and Katherine Wiltenburg Todrys for their incisive comments and edits. Finally, I dedicate this Note to the memory of my sister, Tiffani Simone Williams, who I miss every day. WILLIAMS_11-12-06_FORMATTEDFORSC1 3/14/2007 4:37:11 PM reconstructing section 5\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455751\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455751","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: 0

摘要

《投票权法案》(VRA)第5条——美国民权武器库中最有力的武器——在卡特里娜飓风过后悄然遭遇了意想不到的失败。用于管理第5条的“静态基准测试”未能履行《投票法》的核心任务:维护少数民族的政治权力。这篇笔记提供了这一失败的第一个关键描述,并认为它超越了卡特里娜飓风的具体情况。《笔记》随后提出了一项狭义的教义“修正”,以便在灾难发生后恢复第5条的执行权。作者。耶鲁大学法学院,法学博士,预计2007年;剑桥大学,哲学硕士。2003;哈佛大学,2002年文学学士。我非常感谢欧文·菲斯教授和希瑟·格肯教授,他们激励我并鼓励我写这篇笔记,也非常感谢丹尼斯·柯蒂斯教授和罗伯特·所罗门教授,他们在卡特里娜飓风诊所指导我。非常感谢Marie Boyd, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Kristen Clarke-Avery, Natalie Hershlag, Sia Sanneh, Robert Scott和Katherine Wiltenburg Todrys的深刻评论和编辑。最后,我谨以此信纪念我的妹妹蒂芙尼·西蒙娜·威廉姆斯,我每天都想念她。3月14日下午4:37:11重建第5部分
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
Reconstructing Section 5: A Post-Katrina Proposal for Voting Rights Act Reform
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. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; University of Cambridge, M.Phil. 2003; Harvard University, A.B. 2002. I am deeply indebted to Professors Owen Fiss and Heather Gerken who both inspired and challenged me to develop this Note, and to Professors Dennis Curtis and Robert Solomon who directed me in the Hurricane Katrina Clinic. Many thanks to Marie Boyd, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Kristen Clarke-Avery, Natalie Hershlag, Sia Sanneh, Robert Scott, and Katherine Wiltenburg Todrys for their incisive comments and edits. Finally, I dedicate this Note to the memory of my sister, Tiffani Simone Williams, who I miss every day. WILLIAMS_11-12-06_FORMATTEDFORSC1 3/14/2007 4:37:11 PM reconstructing section 5
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
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