About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2002 U. Chi. Legal F. 363 (2002)
Why Courts Should Forbid Minority Coalition Plantiffs under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Absent Clear Congressional Authorization

handle is hein.journals/uchclf2002 and id is 367 raw text is: Why Courts Should Forbid Minority Coalition Plaintiffs under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Absent Clear Congressional Authorization Christopher E. Skinnellt Voting rights litigation has always been among the most complicated areas of the law. It is a field that does not lend itself to easy judicial standards, a fact that led Justice Frankfurter to urge his judicial brethren not to enter the political thicket many years ago.1 Even had the judiciary been inclined to take his ad- vice,' political developments made such abstention impossible. In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (VRA),3 making voting rights a proper subject of judicial supervision. But the dif- ficulties described by Frankfurter persist. And, as if the proto- typical bipolar voting rights case with a white majority and a black minority were not complicated enough, the last decade has brought a whole array of new questions about what to do when more than one statutorily protected group enters the mix.' One such question facing federal courts is whether two or more minority groups may combine, or aggregate, themselves into one substantial minority coalition for purposes of challenging voting systems and practices under Section 2 of the VRA,6 or whether each legislatively protected group must bring such a t B.A. 1999, Claremont McKenna College; J.D. Candidate 2003, University of Chicago. See Colegrove v Green, 328 US 549, 556 (1946) (plurality opinion) (arguing that voting rights suits were generally beyond the competence of the courts and that [clourts ought not to enter this political thicket). 2 It was not, of course, so inclined. In Baker v Carr, 369 US 186, 209-10 (1962), the Supreme Court ignored Frankfurter's warning, holding that voting rights cases were proper subjects ofjudicial intervention. 3 Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub L No 89-110, 79 Stat 437 (1965), codified as amended at 42 USC §§ 1971, 1973-1973ff-6 (1994). 4 For an example of such questions see Florence Adams, Latinos and Local Represen- tation: Changing Realities, Emerging Theories 19-24 (Garland 2000). 5 Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title I, § 2, at 854 as amended by the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, Pub L No 97-205, § 3, 96 Stat 134 (1982), and codified at 42 USC § 1973 et seq (1994).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most