Episode 16 | Dem Maxxing and the VRA
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
概要
Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, cover everything Voting Rights Act in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Why was the Voting Rights Act enacted, and how does it relate to the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? What did the VRA accomplish? What did the Supreme Court do with Section 5 of the VRA in Shelby County, and was that case rightly decided? Is redistricting even covered by the language of the VRA? If it is covered, would that even be constitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment covers only civil rights, rather than political rights? How has the VRA been interpreted since it was held to cover redistricting? Ilan and Kathryn talk about the "Democrat Movement Lawyer" theory of the VRA, which required what Kathryn calls "Dem Maxxing" -- maximizing the political power of Democrats. The Supreme Court in Callais, Ilan argues, merely scuttled this crazy interpretation of the VRA, restoring it to its original and intended purposes.
Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!
Subscribe to our Substack!
New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!
Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!