{"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":"47 1","pages":"1116"},"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\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"1116\"},\"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
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
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.