The Elephant in the Room: Intentional Voter Suppression

@article{Manheim2019TheEI,
  title={The Elephant in the Room: Intentional Voter Suppression},
  author={Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter},
  journal={The Supreme Court Review},
  year={2019},
  volume={2018},
  pages={213 - 255}
}
Since its inception, the Roberts Court has acquiesced in—and at times even abetted—the attempts of many states to make it harder for Americans to vote. Illustrative is a 2018 decision, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Court rejected a statutory challenge to a state’s expansive purges of voting lists. In Husted the Court dismissed the threat of voter suppression as simply not “relevant” to the case before it. By declining to look beyond states’ unsupported explanations for… 

References

SHOWING 1-9 OF 9 REFERENCES

The Right to Vote under State Constitutions

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is “fundamental,” the “essence of a

Though the Supreme Court appeared prepared to overrule Lassiter in the 1960s, it did not, and the VRA effectively abrogated it

  • US
  • 1959

Will the Court Ever Address Gerrymandering?

  • NY Times

See Section I.B. There is little reason to believe that either Justice Gorsuch or Justice

    affirming district court's finding of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in North Carolina's congressional maps, and describing the state's prior history in this regard)

      See Issacharoff, 64 Duke L J at 1366 (cited in note 13) (discussing the partisan effects of higher and lower turnouts)

        16 -3091_02_24_2017.mp3; Rick Hasen, Judge Easterbrook Asks in WI Case: Why Can't Republicans Make "Pro-Republican Changes" to Make It Harder to Vote?

        • Election Law Blog

        See also, for example, Andrew Verstein, The Jurisprudence of Mixed Motives

        • Forum
        • 2018