Questions & explanations
1. How does partisan gerrymandering differ from racial gerrymandering in relation to voter suppression?
Partisan gerrymandering aims to help one political party, while racial gerrymandering targets a racial group. Voter suppression is often used against racial minorities, but it can also target voters who support a particular party. When gerrymandering is partisan, suppression might be used to reduce turnout of the opposing party's voters. For example, a state might close polling places in areas that lean Democratic. When gerrymandering is racial, suppression often hits minority communities regardless of their party. Both are unfair, but courts are stricter about racial discrimination. Partisan gerrymandering is harder to challenge in federal court, while racial gerrymandering and suppression can be attacked under the Voting Rights Act.
2. How can a gerrymandered map make voter suppression more effective?
A gerrymandered map can concentrate or split minority voters in ways that waste their votes. When combined with suppression, the few minority voters who manage to vote may be placed in districts where their votes do not matter. For example, if a state packs many minority voters into one district, they can only win that one seat. Suppression then reduces turnout in that district, making it easier for the other party to win. Alternatively, if the map cracks minority voters across many districts, they are a minority in each. Suppression then reduces their already small numbers even more, so they cannot influence any election. The two tactics work together to reduce minority representation.
3. What restriction on corporate political advertising did the Supreme Court strike down in Citizens United v. FEC?
Before Citizens United, a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned corporations and unions from using their own money (general treasury funds) to run ads that mentioned a federal candidate close to an election. The Supreme Court ruled this ban violated the First Amendment right to free speech. After the decision, corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on independent political ads, as long as they did not coordinate with the candidate. This greatly increased the amount of money flowing into elections from outside groups. Critics argue it gave too much influence to wealthy interests, while supporters say it protects free political speech.
4. Give an example of a voting law that failed under strict scrutiny.
In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas voter ID law under strict scrutiny. The law required a photo ID to vote, and Texas could not show it was needed to prevent fraud. The court found that the law unfairly hurt poor and minority voters who were less likely to have such IDs. The state had less strict alternatives, like letting voters sign an affidavit. Because the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve its goal, it failed strict scrutiny. Another example: literacy tests were struck down because they had no important goal and clearly discriminated. These tests were designed to stop Black people from voting and could not survive any level of review.
5. Compare international election observation with domestic (local) election monitoring.
International observers come from outside the country, while domestic monitors are local citizens or groups. International teams often have more experience and can speak without fear of government punishment because they leave after the election. Domestic monitors know local languages and customs better and can watch the process over a longer time. Both types are important: international observers give an outside view, and domestic groups provide deep local knowledge. Together, they make it harder to cheat because more eyes are watching. Sometimes governments welcome international observers to show they are transparent, but other times they restrict them.
6. Explain the Veasey v. Abbott case and why it is important.
Veasey v. Abbott was a challenge to Texas's voter ID law passed in 2011. The law allowed only specific photo IDs, like a driver's license or passport, but not student or employment IDs. A federal appeals court found that the law intentionally discriminated against minority voters. The court said the state's goal of preventing fraud was not the real reason; the law was designed to make voting harder for Democrats and minorities. The case is important because it shows that even after Shelby County, courts can still block discriminatory laws under the Voting Rights Act's other sections. It also shows the importance of looking at the law's effect and intent.
7. How does a disparate impact claim under the Voting Rights Act differ from a strict scrutiny claim?
A disparate impact claim does not require proof that the lawmakers meant to discriminate. It only requires showing that the law results in less opportunity for minority voters to participate. The burden then shifts to the state to prove the law is necessary. In strict scrutiny, the voter must first show intentional discrimination, which is harder. For example, a state law that reduces early voting days might not be intended to hurt minorities. But if it disproportionately affects minority voters who rely on early voting, it could be challenged under disparate impact. Strict scrutiny would require evidence that the state specifically targeted minorities.
8. How does a court decide whether a voting law should get strict scrutiny or a lower test?
A court first looks at whether the law treats people differently based on a suspect classification like race. If it does, then strict scrutiny applies. Also, if the law burdens a fundamental right like voting, the court may use strict scrutiny. But if the law applies equally to everyone and does not target a suspect class, a lower test called 'rational basis' is used. Under rational basis, the law is usually allowed if the state has any good reason for it. For example, a law that requires all voters to vote on a Tuesday applies equally, so it gets rational basis and is usually kept. The key is whether the law discriminates on its face or in its effect.
9. Can a voting law be saved under equal protection if it has a very important reason, even if it hurts a minority group?
Yes, sometimes. Courts apply something called strict scrutiny to voting laws that seem to discriminate. Under strict scrutiny, the law must serve a very important government goal and be narrowly designed to achieve that goal. For example, a law that prevents non-citizens from voting serves the important goal of keeping elections for citizens only. That law is allowed even if it affects a group with many non-citizens. But if the law is too broad or the goal is not strong enough, it fails. Most voting laws that intentionally harm minority groups do not pass strict scrutiny because the government can usually use less harmful ways to achieve its goals.
10. What is the difference between independent expenditures and direct contributions to a candidate?
An independent expenditure is spending on a political ad or activity that is not coordinated with any candidate or party. The spender acts entirely on their own. A direct contribution is money given directly to a candidate's campaign, which is limited by law (e.g., $2,900 per election under current rules). Citizens United only applies to independent expenditures, not to direct contributions. So while corporations can now spend unlimited money on independent ads, they still cannot give money directly to candidates beyond the legal limit. This distinction is important because the Court saw independent spending as less likely to cause corruption.
11. What legal tools can be used to fight both voter suppression and gerrymandering that target the same group?
The Voting Rights Act Section 2 is a strong tool. It bans any voting practice that results in discrimination against a racial or language minority. This can cover both a restrictive voting law and a gerrymandered map if they together harm the group. Also, the Equal Protection Clause can be used if there is proof of intentional discrimination. Courts can order a state to change its voting rules and redraw districts fairly. Sometimes, advocates also use state constitutions that have stronger protections. But these cases are hard to win because the state must be shown to have acted with discriminatory intent or produced a discriminatory result.
12. Can you give a real scenario where a court found that gerrymandering and voter suppression worked together to harm minority voters?
In a 2017 case, a federal court found that North Carolina's voter ID law and its redistricting plan together targeted Black voters. The court said the state deliberately made it harder for Black people to vote and also drew districts that reduced their voting strength. The voter ID law was passed after a court struck down the state's earlier racial gerrymander. The court saw this as a coordinated effort to limit Black political power. It struck down both the voter ID law and the map as violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. This shows how courts can look at the whole picture of voting rules and district lines.