The Congressional Black Caucus, minority voting rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court / Christina R. Rivers.Material type: TextSeries: 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.
|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|
Browsing UT Tyler Online shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser
|KF4891 .K564 2019 Voting Rights in America.||KF4891 .M67 2012 The most fundamental right :||KF4893 Voting Rights Under Fire.||KF4893 .R58 2012 The Congressional Black Caucus, minority voting rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court /||KF4896.L56.T83 2009 | KF4896.L56T83 2009 The Battle Over Bilingual Ballots :||KF4920 Capitalism v. Democracy :||KF4920 -- .M883 2016 Campaign Finance :|
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.