FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1514035494> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1514035494 startingPage "227" @default.
• W1514035494 abstract "Introduction On the eve of the next apportionment, the Supreme Court is caught in the throes of the last. For the fourth time in less than ten years,1 the North Carolina congressional districts at issue in Shaw v. Reno2 (Shaw I) are making an appearance before the Supreme Court.3 Although the cast of characters differs slightly, the interconnected issues presented in Shaw I nevertheless remain the same. First, to what extent may state actors rely on racial demographics while performing their redistricting duty? Second, what is the proper doctrinal approach for rooting out ostensibly unconstitutional reliance on racebased redistricting? Third, can the Supreme Court and lower courts consistently distinguish between race consciousness and race motivation? As an institution, the Court has been unable to answer these questions with any clarity or predictability. Instead, the Court has splintered into three camps. For some members of the Court, any evidence of race consciousness invalidates the infected district absent compelling reasons. On this reading of the Constitution, race consciousness is race motivation.4 For others, evidence of race consciousness, standing alone, is not nearly enough to implicate the Constitution. For this second faction, redistricting does not violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the effect of the redistricting plan is to deny a particular group equal access to the political process or to minimize its voting strength unduly.5 For the remaining members of the Court, particularly Justice O'Connor, it is the excessive reliance on race, something akin to uberrace consciousness - the ostentatious display of race consciousness run amok-- that offends the Equal Protection Clause.6 These various approaches have borne much doctrinal confusion. On the one hand there is Shaw I's commitment to the bizarre shape test, whereby a district is subject to strict scrutiny review if its shape is bizarre and the process that led to its creation is race conscious.7 On the other hand, there is Miller v. Johnson's8 predominant factor test, which focuses instead on whether race was a predominant factor in the ultimate placement of within one district or another.9 On their face, these two approaches stand in direct tension. Despite these doctrinal difficulties, the Court, to its credit, has attempted to blend symbiotically Shaw I and Miller's differing approaches into an interesting evidentiary and doctrinal dialectic.10 All the same, the initial tension remains. The Court's racial redistricting doctrine is committed to at least two different constitutional tests, two competing ways by which the use of race may offend the Equal Protection Clause. Hunt v. Cromartie (Cromartie II)11 presents the Court with its first opportunity this millennium to bring some semblance of clarity to this area of law and to resolve the tension created by Shaw I and Miller. Of equal importance, Cromartie II also will test the Court's avowed commitment to maintain a distinction between racial motivation and racial consciousness or awareness in the voting rights context. In so doing, Cromartie II threatens to lay bare the doctrine's vacuity. Cromartie II's impact is potentially destabilizing because of the manner in which the factual circumstances of the case interact with the Court's wrongful districting doctrine. One specific fact of the case stands out rather conspicuously: While the notoriously ubiquitous Districts 1 and 12 are once again the subject of constitutional scrutiny, unlike their predecessors,12 these districts are no longer majority-minority districts. Moreover, a reasonable observer may conclude that they are not even bizarre.13 These facts raise at least three important questions. First, may prospective plaintiffs challenge majority-white districts on Shaw/Miller grounds? In other words, when the Court refers to a number of voters as the threshold indicating a predominant motive to segregate, how significant is significant? …" @default.
• W1514035494 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1514035494 creator A5012083755 @default.
• W1514035494 creator A5054043684 @default.
• W1514035494 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W1514035494 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1514035494 title "Challenges to Racial Redistricting in the New Millennium: Hunt v. Cromartie as a Case Study" @default.
• W1514035494 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1514035494 type Work @default.
• W1514035494 sameAs 1514035494 @default.
• W1514035494 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1514035494 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1514035494 hasAuthorship W1514035494A5012083755 @default.
• W1514035494 hasAuthorship W1514035494A5054043684 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C2778477362 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C2779361081 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C144024400 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C15744967 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C169760540 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C17744445 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C186720457 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C199539241 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C2776154427 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C2778272461 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C2778477362 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C2779160553 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C2779361081 @default.
• W1514035494 hasConceptScore W1514035494C94625758 @default.
• W1514035494 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1514035494 hasLocation W15140354941 @default.
• W1514035494 hasOpenAccess W1514035494 @default.
• W1514035494 hasPrimaryLocation W15140354941 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W114323662 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W1538669493 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W1582477418 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2009811765 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2032155378 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2084780816 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2120110819 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2215708616 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2258688569 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2262608215 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W232290024 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2597458869 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W2624907072 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W3124849701 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W340401853 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W350072501 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W397566809 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W60891034 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W70822143 @default.
• W1514035494 hasRelatedWork W968812532 @default.
• W1514035494 hasVolume "58" @default.
• W1514035494 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1514035494 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1514035494 magId "1514035494" @default.
• W1514035494 workType "article" @default.