The Congressional Black Caucus, minority voting rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court / Christina R. Rivers.

By: Rivers, Christina RMaterial type: TextTextSeries: JSTOR eBooksPublisher: Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, 2012Description: 1 online resource (pages)Content type: text Media type: computer Carrier type: online resourceISBN: 9780472028214; 0472028219Subject(s): Minorities -- Suffrage -- United States | African Americans -- SuffrageAdditional physical formats: Print version:: Congressional Black Caucus, minority voting rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court.DDC classification: 324.6/208996073 LOC classification: KF4893 | .R58 2012Online resources: Click here to view this ebook.
Contents:
Introduction -- Competing approaches to law and voting minority rights -- Foundations of Black political activism : pushing idealist boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing legislative boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing constitutional boundaries -- The Supreme Court : pushing back -- Reconciling the present with the past.
Summary: Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) claim to advocate minority political interests, yet they disagree over the intent and scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as well as the interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Whereas the Court promotes color-blind policies, the CBC advocates race-based remedies. Setting this debate in the context of the history of black political thought, Rivers examines a series of high-profile districting cases, from Rodgers v. Lodge (1982) through NAMUDNO v. Holder (2009). She evaluates the competing approaches to racial equality and concludes, surprisingly, that an originalist, race-conscious interpretation of the 14th Amendment, along with a revised states' rights position regarding electoral districting, may better serve minority political interests.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Item type Current location Call number URL Status Date due Barcode
Electronic Book UT Tyler Online
Online
KF4893 .R58 2012 (Browse shelf) https://ezproxy.uttyler.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.3211415 Available ocn807035294

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Introduction -- Competing approaches to law and voting minority rights -- Foundations of Black political activism : pushing idealist boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing legislative boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing constitutional boundaries -- The Supreme Court : pushing back -- Reconciling the present with the past.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) claim to advocate minority political interests, yet they disagree over the intent and scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as well as the interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Whereas the Court promotes color-blind policies, the CBC advocates race-based remedies. Setting this debate in the context of the history of black political thought, Rivers examines a series of high-profile districting cases, from Rodgers v. Lodge (1982) through NAMUDNO v. Holder (2009). She evaluates the competing approaches to racial equality and concludes, surprisingly, that an originalist, race-conscious interpretation of the 14th Amendment, along with a revised states' rights position regarding electoral districting, may better serve minority political interests.

Print version record.

Author notes provided by Syndetics

Christina R. Rivers is Associate Professor of Political Science at DePaul University.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.