champion briefs-feb 2014
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
1/284
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
2/284
Copyright 2014 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
3/284
!"# %&'(#)*# +,-)(-.( /#0.1-.2 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 7
!"# %&'(#)*#+,-)(-.(
"#$$%& '() *$+',$ #-./0)$1 ' 2$'(0(3456 '() $)5%',0.('6 $7#$-0$(%$ ,. '66 8&. '-$ 0(/.6/$)9
:$; '1 $)5%',.-1 0( ,&$ %.225(0,
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
4/284
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -%#./".0 1234
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 4
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
The Evidence Standard___________________________ 3
Topic Analyses _________________________________ 7
Topic Analysis by Danny Rego ______________________________ 8
Topic Analysis by Ethan Goldstein _________________________ 13
Topic Analysis by Grant Sinnott ___________________________ 19
General Information ____________________________ 23
Possible Frameworks ___________________________ 43
Pro Arguments with Con Responses _______________ 50
Court Ruling Followed Prior Court Precedent _________________ 51
A/2: Court Ruling Followed Prior Court Precedent __________ 55
Discrimination Against States Always Unconstitutional _________ 59
A/2: Discrimination Against States Always Unconstitutional ___ 62
Discrimination Against States Lacks Reason _________________ 66
A/2: Discrimination Against States Lacks Reason __________ 69
States Should Be Treated Equally ___________________________ 72
A/2: States Should Be Treated Equally _____________________ 75
States Have the Right to Self-Govern _________________________ 78
A/2: States Have the Right to Self-Govern __________________ 81
Disparate Impact _________________________________________ 84
A/2: Disparate Impact ___________________________________ 89
Violations of Federalism ___________________________________ 94
A/2: Violations of Federalism ____________________________ 102
Judicial Review and Limiting Federal Power _________________ 107
A/2: Judicial Review and Limiting Federal Power __________ 111
Outdated Formula _______________________________________ 117
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
5/284
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -%#./".0 1234
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5
A/2: Outdated Formula _________________________________ 122
Section 2 Necessary ______________________________________ 127
A/2: Section 2 Necessary ________________________________ 131
15th Amendment Violations Prevented by Section 3 ___________ 140A/2: 15th Amendment Violations Prevented by Section 3 _____ 140
Court Ruling Protects Voting Rights with Section 5____________ 144
A/2: Court Ruling Protects Voting Rights with Section 5 _____ 148
Equal Sovereignty and Equal Protection _____________________ 152
A/2: Equal Sovereignty and Equal Protection ______________ 156
Unconstitutional due to Necessary and Proper Clause __________ 160
A/2: Unconstitutional due to Necessary and Proper Clause ___ 164
Overstep of the Federal Government ________________________ 168A/2: Overstep of the Federal Government _________________ 171
Con Arguments with Pro Responses ______________ 176
Covered Jurisdictions Still Have Worst Voting Conditions ______ 177
A/2: Covered Jurisdictions Still Have Worst Voting Conditions 181
The Decision Invalidates Section 5 Unjustly __________________ 184
A/2: The Decision Invalidates Section 5 Unjustly ____________ 189
Section 2 of the VRA is an Imperfect Replacement ____________ 192
A/2: Section 2 of the VRA is an Imperfect Replacement ______ 196
The VRA is Preferable to New Legislation ___________________ 199
A/2: The VRA is Preferable to New Legislation _____________ 204
Supreme Court Should Practice Severe Judicial Restraint ______ 207
A/2: Supreme Court Should Practice Severe Judicial Restraint 212
Elections Clause Allows Congress to Choose __________________ 216
A/2: Elections Clause Allows Congress to Choose ___________ 220
Section Five is the Constitutional Flaw, not Section Four _______ 223
A/2: Section Five is the Constitutional Flaw, not Section Four _ 226
Preclearance Still Necessary _______________________________ 229
A/2: Preclearance Still Necessary ________________________ 232
Decision Removes Progress Made to Provide Equality _________ 236
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
6/284
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -%#./".0 1234
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5
A/2: Decision Removes Progress Made to Provide Equality ___ 239
States Dont Need to be Treated Equally _____________________ 242
A/2: States Dont Need to be Treated Equally ______________ 246
State Equality is not a Constitutional Requirement ____________ 248A/2: State Equality is not a Constitutional Requirement _____ 251
Different Coverage Formulas not Politically Possible __________ 254
A/2: Different Coverage Formulas not Politically Possible ____ 259
15th Amendment Grants Congress These Powers _____________ 262
A/2: 15th Amendment Grants Congress These Powers _______ 267
Civil Rights Questions are Answered by Congress _____________ 270
A/2: Civil Rights Questions are Answered by Congress ______ 274
There is still a need for Section 4 of the VRA _________________ 277A/2: There is still a need for Section 4 of the VRA ___________ 282
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
7/284
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
8/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01" 20-34)3+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01"
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated
the Constitution.
Being frustrated with this topic at first glance is completely legitimate. Constitutionality
is always a tough issue to debate, but this topic is not only about that. The Supreme Courts
decision surrounded the issues of discrimination, federalism, and timeliness. These are issues
that reach into the deep recesses of our country and its history. My main issue with this topic is
not the issue of individual rights and the Supreme Court but rather with the constitutional issue
that the NFL chose to examine.
This topic is not only narrow but it is difficult to access because the topic is worded in a
way saying not that that Section 4 is unconstitutional but rather that the decision was correct.
This limits the debate in an unnecessary way because it will force teams from the Affirmative to
either debate the same arguments made by the Supreme Court or deal with frameworks by the
Negative that attempt to force them into that advocacy. The wording of the topic makes is
unnecessarily ultra-specific and this is going to lessen the quality of debates because teams wont
be able to access a plethora of constitutional ground. Additionally, limiting the debate to this one
section reduces the ability for this debate to come down to different issues in every round. Im
not suggesting that the topic should have been whether or not the Voting Rights Act itself was
unconstitutional; what I am suggesting is that the other topic regarding religious exemptions
would have been the lesser of the evils because that would at least allow debaters to discuss the
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
9/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01" 20-34)3+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9
extent to which rights apply. This topic is not one about rights but rather if the system in place to
correct for rights infringements is still valid or not.
So how do teams win on this topic? The first thing that each team needs to establish is
how the Supreme Court ought to operate when it interprets the Constitution. This is vital to
answering the question of whether or not they decided correctly because the answer will most
certainly change depending on how they are supposed to interpret the Constitution as well as
what their role within society is. This can either be done at the framework level or the contention
level. The framework level is more practical because it makes it an overarching argument within
the round as opposed to an argument that can be beaten and then ignored. This is an argument
that will be the internal link of either teams case because it will determine whether or not your
arguments answer the question based upon the Courts calculus.
The second thing that is necessary for both teams is establishing the grounds on which
the round will be decided. What I mean by this is that you need to establish and explain the main
issues concerning the constitutionality of Section 4. This will be weaved through the contention
level arguments of your case and will be the core tenets of your voting issues at the end of the
round. On both sides, you will have multiple different ways of linking into the decisions
constitutionality, but ultimately it will come back to those main core tenets that I mentioned at
the beginning of this topic analysis. This will make it easier for you to boil down the round to a
few main arguments regarding the validity of Section 4. This is key because constitutionality is a
difficult topic to relay to judges because there is very little room to weigh; if you prove your
constitutional arguments and warrants, then the impact is simply that the Section is constitutional
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
10/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01" 20-34)3+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 76
or not. Essentially, this topic is going to be much more focused on the link debate than on the
impact analysis.
The third thing that both teams need to do is understand the history and precedent that
followed the Voting Rights Act, its amendments, and its history in the U.S. court system. These
can change the course of the round if you are not fully informed because the precedent is
bilateral but some cases are more applicable or are better apt to helping judge the question of
whether or not this section is topical. Moreover, it is important to note that both teams are most
likely going to have to argue the role that precedent plays within the court system as well as the
burden of proof necessary to deem something unconstitutional or constitutional. On the
Affirmative, you are going to want to argue that the court must interpret the Constitution in such
a way that looks to the potential harms to the individual citizens rights, which means that they
have a lower burden of proof to rule something as unconstitutional. On the Negative, you should
argue that the Supreme Court ought take the greatest care when ruling something
unconstitutional because the legislature has the power to enforce laws and the Constitution
through appropriate legislation. The Supreme Court should only intervene with legislative
powers when absolutely necessary, which means that there is a higher burden of proof in order to
rule something unconstitutional.
Teams need to be careful about how they are going to choose to interpret the resolution
because it can change the course of the round. In the Framework section, we analyze a few
different ways to approach the topic. One way is for you to analyze it in the sense of looking at
the specific decision made and whether or not it was correct in its entirety. This will allow you to
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
11/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01" 20-34)3+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 77
make many different arguments on the negative that the decision didnt encompass everything it
needed to or that it was insufficient. You can also choose to interpret the resolution in a manner
that says the decision was made and that you only need to come to that same conclusion in order
to win the round. This will allow you to answer the question of the resolution in multiple
different ways to allow for the most amount of diversification.
On the Affirmative, the most compelling strategy would be one that approaches the case
in totally different ways. I would recommend arguing that the formula based on old data is no
longer applicable because the times have changed and discrimination is no longer as prevalent as
it was back in the day. This would make Section 4 unconstitutional because it creates an undue
burden on states. The second possible argument that is compelling is that because this section
does not apply to all states equally, it does not meet the standard of all states being equally
sovereign. Under this argument, you can also argue that this is an undue infringement upon state
rights by the federal government, which is compounded by the fact that it isnt applicable to all
states equally. Another approach is to explain that because current precedent is not applicable
(because the precedent doesnt deal with the timeliness aspect), the Supreme Court has to create
a precedent that answers the troubling question in order to prevent infringement upon rights in
the future. The last argument that I find compelling is the idea that the decision rightly decided
that other sections, such as 3 or 5, are constitutional, which circumvent the unconstitutional
aspects or risks of constitutionality of Section 4; thus the Supreme Court rightly decided.
On the Negative, the first argument that should be at the top of the case is the idea that
discrimination is still prevalent within the U.S. or in the regions defined by the law and, thus,
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
12/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ .)((+ /01" 20-34)3+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 75
still remains necessary. Second, I would argue that the Supreme Court needs to practice strict
restraint in order to prevent an infringement upon legislative powers when such an infringement
is unwarranted. Third, I would argue that the sections that the court did uphold, such as Section
5, couldnt be used without Section 4 being in place because it invalidates the main tenets of the
law. Overall, I think that both teams are going to have a difficult time finding clash in a round
when there a so many topic interpretations and arguments that follow it.
Good Luck!
About Danny Rego
Danny Rego attended and competed for University School of Nova Southeastern
University and graduated in May, 2012. He competed in Public Forum Debate throughout his
entire 4 years of high school. He won the Tournament of Champions (2012) and Crestian Classic
(2011). He was a finalist at the Florida State Tournament and the Crestian Classic (2012). He
was a late elimination round competitor at the Glenbrooks, Emory, and Apple Valley. Danny is
currently a sophmore at Northeastern University majoring in International Business and
minoring in International Affairs and Economics. He spends his summers instructing at the
Champion Briefs Institute.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
13/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9;
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$(
Before I begin my Topic Analysis, I would like to introduce myself to our readers. I am
Ethan Goldstein, a former 4-year Public Forum debater from American Heritage School. And
yes, my partner did win Nationals in Congress. Now that weve gotten the awkward first
introduction out of the way, lets delve into the topic of arguably the biggest month on the PF
circuit.
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated
the Constitution.
I have to say that February is one of my favorite months of debate and this year, like past
years, the February topic is very straightforward. Unfortunately this year, the resolution is very
straightforward about a very confusing issue. Basically, I dont think you should worry about
arguing definitions, but the subject matter of Section 4 is very difficult to understand.
So lets first begin with some background information on the Voting Rights Act and
Section 4. The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 and was aimed at reducing electoral
corruption and discrimination by creating something known as preclearance. Preclearance
forced all districts that met a certain requirement to get approval from the U.S. Attorney General
or a 3-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of D.C. if they wish to make any changes that could
affect voting. Shelby County v Holder (2013), the case in question, struck down Section 4(b) as
Unconstitutional. The court ruled that the criterion used outdated data and thus put an
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
14/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9:
Unconstitutional burden on the federal government to oversee this state issue of voting. This
specific section established the criterion for a district needing preclearance. It is very important
to recognize that Section 4(b) only determined the criterion. However, once ruled
Unconstitutional, preclearance can no longer be practiced until or unless new legislation is
passed. It is also very important to realize that the Section 4(b) standards only applied to very
few states, mostly in the south. This means that the law was never some sweeping mandate used
across the entire nation, but rather it was instituted as a check and balance on racial
discrimination.
For this topic, it is very important to know the constitution. Obviously Im not suggesting
that you all become Constitutional scholars in a week, but definitely brush up on your
Constitutional knowledge. Knowing more than your opponents about the constitution can be an
effective way at refuting your opponents contentions without cards that specifically relate to the
arguments your opponents use. As discussed earlier, there is a short turnover from January to
February so the amount of research you compile may be less than you compile for other
tournaments. But a broader knowledge of the constitution can a) make your opponents lose
credibility with the judge; and b) allow you to effectively refute without reading card after card
after card.
I believe the nature of this topic will tend to favor debaters who analyze arguments rather
than just simply read cards. I honestly believe that a second speaker can give a brilliant rebuttal
only using one or two cards. I think judges will prefer analytics to card reading because the
resolution begs the debaters (you guys) to tell the judge WHY, not WHAT. Whywas the
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
15/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9;
Supreme Court right or not right in making this decision? For example, while with past topics
you could read cards that essentially say According to this professor from this prestigious
university, my opponents are wrong, I can guarantee that you will not be able to get away with
that on this topic. So brush up on your Constitutional knowledge and focus on analyzing and
explaining rather than just card reading.
This resolution, unlike past topics, is not asking the judge to choose between two
different options, but rather this resolution is a truth test. The Supreme Court did strike down
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, now lets debate if they were right in doing so. A lot of
you will be coming off a very busy month of January and as such the turnover between topics is
fairly short. This will require some strategic prepping. Given the wording of this topic, you
probably are not going to win rounds off case turns. In other words, because this topic is a truth
test, dropping ones case and hoping to win off turns read in rebuttal is not the best decision when
trying to win rounds. Instead, I suggest having well-warranted, strong cases that you can win
with independently of winning your opponents case. I think this topic more than any other so far
this year could come down to which team has the better case.
I think that most rounds will be won in the framework debate. Some of you will love this
and others will find this too nitpicky for your liking. Regardless, I truly believe that all cases
should absolutely have some sort of framework establishing the mechanisms you will be using to
analyze the Constitutionality of this decision. Teams should be analyzing Constitutionality on
pillars such as Federalism, popular sovereignty, voter turnout, etc. Because this topic applies
specifically to voting regulations; think back to the Citizens United topic and remember some of
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
16/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9;
the Constitutional standards you debated. Ideas such as voter turnout, voter knowledge, voter
responsiveness, and voter fairness could all be applied to this topic. My suggestion is to write a
framework that includes a few of these democratic ideals, tell the judge why these are the most
important in analyzing the Constitutionality of the decision, and write contentions that support
that framework.
Lets look specifically to the Pro side of this debate. Because a judge could be very
opinionated about this topic, I think its important to point out that you are debating
Constitutionality, not your personal feelings. With that being said, I think the pro should use the
courts decision to its advantage. What I mean by this is use the courts reasoning to develop
your arguments. The court ruled that the coverage formula was outdated considering it was
implemented over 40 years ago. I think you could use that line of logic to your advantage and
explain that since the Constitution is a living, breathing document, things need to be changed
over time. I also believe the pro could make a compelling argument that the U.S. has undergone
dramatic changes since the 1960s and that the Voting Rights Act is no longer required. I think
you could back this argument up by giving statistics about minority voting rates in recent
elections.
I think another good way for the pro to win rounds is via Federalism. You could easily
argue that Section 4(b) gave the federal government too much power over the states to determine
voting regulations for the states. I also think Pro could make the argument that not many districts
were affected to begin with and then challenge the negative team to show some dramatic change
that will happen as a result of the decision. I think the best way for Pro to approach the round is
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
17/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9;
based strictly on Constitutionality rather than emotions, and challenge the negative team to show
absolute harms that will occur as a result of the decision.
On the Con side of the debate, I think debaters should stress that current voting habits are
nowhere near equal and that Section 4(b) is absolutely necessary to insure an equal and fair
election system. I think Con should focus on the Constitutional standards of equality and
fairness. Con could present a very compelling case arguing that currently there are still issues
with electoral equality and fairness, prove that Section 4(b) reduces that inequality, and ague that
decreasing fairness in anyway is antithetical to Constitutional views. I think most judges will
want to side with the Con based on personal views, so use that to your advantage. Good negative
teams will argue that inequality and unfairness in elections has been decreasing over time and
find evidence that attributes that success to the Voting Rights Act. The Con has the ability to
play the speculation game. They can easily make the argument that we will not truly know what
will happen as a result of the decision and that the devil you know if better than the devil you
dont know. Pigeonhole the affirmative into defending an election system with no check on
racial discrimination or force them explain how new legislation could solve this problem better.
The negative team should be constantly asking the affirmative to explain how taking away
checks and balances on racial discrimination could possibly lead to a more democratic society.
I think Pro is a more technical side, while I think Con can use some bigger picture ideas
to their advantage. With that being said, I am extremely excited to see this topic debated as a bit
of a Constitutional scholar myself. Good luck to everyone in the monster month that is February
and I hope to see many of you at Harvard!
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
18/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./0)( 1"*2,/3$( 43-56)5+ 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9;
About Ethan Goldstein
Ethan Goldstein attended and competed for American Heritage in Florida for four years
and graduated in 2013. During his career, he championed the 2013 NCFL Grand National
Tournament, the 2012 Wake Forest Earlybird, and the 2011 & 2012 Villager Invitational.
Additionally, he was a finalist at Emory, the Sunvitational, and the Sunvitational Round Robin
and was named the top speaker at the 2012 Tournament of Champions. He currently attends the
University of Florida where he is studying political science and economics.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
19/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./)(0 1$(("00 23-/4)/+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 79
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./)(0 1$(("00
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated
the Constitution.
Due to the narrow nature of the fundamental question of this resolution, several factors
that may not play as large of a role in other resolutions will become more critical for success.
The first area we will look at is one (that my topic analyses dont normally touch on) is the
history of the conflict and why this resolution has been chosen. Rob Teilhet
offers one of the best
explanations of the problems of the past that I could find. He explains:
Prior to the Voting Rights Act, voter suppression and intimidation were
widespread and institutional. Schemes designed to keep African-Americans from voting
were commonplace and barely disguised usually in the form of a poll tax, literacy test
or grandfather clause. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, designed to
outlaw discriminatory voting practices that had led to the widespread disenfranchisement
of African-Americans.1
By understanding from where this law comes, discrimination, and racism in south, we are
better able to understand the constitutional challenges of today. The voting rights act clearly
"Teilhet, Rob. "Our election politics: Present just like past."University of Georgia. (2013 ): n.page. Web. 7 Jan. 2014. .
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
20/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./)(0 1$(("00 23-/4)/+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 56
empowers minorities with special protection, but are these protections still needed and are they
fair to all citizens? To better understand the questions of this resolution, it is necessary to look at
the scoop and overreaching impact of the section. This section has been used in a host of cases to
stop things like voter ID laws from coming into fruition; I would suggest further research
specific actions that this law has been used to stop. Before engaging in the debate of whether or
not the benefits of the law are good or bad / right or wrong, I think it is important to ask whether
it is the role of the judiciary and the constitution to fix the problems that this law is meant to stop
or the role of the legislature.
This debate could be answered on two levels in my mind. The first is a pragmatic level. It
could be argued that judicial activism is needed because the legislature is failing to do its job to
pass policy. On the other side, it could be argued that because the law has existed, the legislature
has felt no need to pass policy and that this decision has overstepped the role of the judiciary,
who some would argue exist solely to interpret. This debate stems back into a discussion of
whether the SCOTUS should interpret the constitution as a living document one that is fluid
and needs to be changed or as a set in stone set of instructions that should not be altered.
Interesting justifications for both sides surely exist, but I think the best example is that if we
interpreted the constitution strictly, the practice of slavery still might exist today. With this in
mind, I think intuition suggests that almost anything is and should be up for change, but there are
most definitely people with other lines of thought.
I like how these arguments are directly predicated around the idea of constitutionality, by
defining the way the document should be interpreted it will become easier for teams to defend
their own arguments and attacks others. When thinking about the substance of this topic, I
imagine many teams will carve out specific advocacies about how without this section X policy
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
21/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./)(0 1$(("00 23-/4)/+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 57
will pass that will cause Y rights violation that violates Z part of the constitution. Luckily the
decision was made on a 5-4, so there is clearly room for contention on the issue, and I dont
think arguments about SCOTUS being the best decider are going to work. Anyways, these niche
positions are a creative way to frame the topic and find unique justifications for why the law is or
is not constitutional.
The other side could make counter claims about the over extension of the law and how
these negatively effect rights and violate the constitution. Ultimately, I think this sides ground is
slightly limited and that the teams who are going to win on the affirmative are going to be able to
tell a persuasive narrative about why the problems that justified these special conditions in the
south are no longer relevant today. Here, I think arguments that agree that the problems still exist
but that they are not of the same magnitude as in the past will be effective. When the ruling was
made, these issues were much worse, and while there are some problems today they are not on
par with what they use to be. This could invalidate the constitutional bases of the negative
position.
For all teams, I offer some random advice. Amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme
Court are going to be some of the best evidence you can find. Secondly, it is important to
understand the underpinnings of the decision both current and past. Find out why it was
constitutional then and why it is unconstitutional now, this will enable you to link or delink
weird arguments or specific disadvantages.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
22/284
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./)(0 1$(("00 23-/4)/+ 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 55
About Grant Sinnott
Grant Sinnott was a Public Forum debater for Lake Highland Prep in Florida and
graduated in May 2013. He was the Champion of the 2013 NFL National Tournament, the
Sunvitational, Sunvitational Round Robin, the Florida State Tournament. Additionally, he was a
finalist at the Tournament of Champions, the Glenbrooks, and Emory. Throughout his career, he
amassed 10 TOC bids among other achievements. Grant currently attends the University of
Florida in Gainesville, FL.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
23/284
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
24/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 25
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*#
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.
Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge
about a topic is just as valuable as formulating the right arguments.
Having general background knowledge about the topic area helps
debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of
knowledge. As such, we have compiled general information on the key
concepts and general areas that we feel will best suit you for in- and out-
of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built from a
strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this
section to help build that foundation.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
25/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 26
7"8,-*# 5 *) 9*,-#: ;-:8, *) 4?@6
SEC. 4.(a) To assure that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or
abridged on account of race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal,
State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State with
respect to which the determinations have been made under subsection (b) or in any political
subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action for a declaratory
judgment brought by such State or subdivision against the United States has determined that no
such test or device has been used during the five years preceding the filing of the action for the
purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color:
Provided, That no such declaratory judgment shall issue with respect to any plaintiff for a period
of five years after the entry of a final judgment of any court of the United States, other than the
denial of a declaratory judgment under this section, whether entered prior to or after the
enactment of this Act, determining that denials or abridgments of the right to vote on account of
race or color through the use of such tests or devices have occurred anywhere in the territory of
such plaintiff. An action pursuant to this subsection shall be heard and determined by a court of
three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States
Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. The court shall retain jurisdiction of any
action pursuant to this subsection for five years after judgment and shall reopen the action upon
motion of the Attorney General alleging that a test or device has been used for the purpose or
with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
If the Attorney General determines that he has no reason to believe that any such test or
device has been used during the five years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or
with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, he shall
consent to the entry of such judgment.(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a
state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or
device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50
percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or
that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
26/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 26
A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census
under this section or under section 6 or section 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and shall
be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
(c) The phrase "test or device" shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for
voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret
any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular
subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of
registered voters or members of any other class.
(d) For purposes of this section no State or political subdivision shall be determined to have
engaged in the use of tests or devices for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote on account of race or color if (1) incidents of such use have been few in number
and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or local action, (2) the continuing
effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their
recurrence in the future.
(e) (1) Congress hereby declares that to secure the rights under the fourteenth amendment of
persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominant classroom language was
other than English, it is necessary to prohibit the States from conditioning the right to vote of
such persons on ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English
language. (2) No person who demonstrates that he has successfully completed the sixth primary
grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language
was other than English, shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election
because of his inability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English
language, except that, in States in which State law provides that a different level of education is
presumptive of literacy, he shall demonstrate that he has successfully completed an equivalent
level of education in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory,the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant
classroom language was other than English (Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)).
Other Relevant Sections of Voting Rights Act
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
27/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 26
SEC. 3.(a) Whenever the Attorney General institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce
the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court shall
authorize the appointment of Federal examiners by the United States Civil Service Commission
in accordance with section 6 to serve for such period of time and for such political subdivisions
as the court shall determine is appropriate to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment
(1) as part of any interlocutory order if the court determines that the appointment of such
examiners is necessary to enforce such guarantees or (2) as part of any final judgment if the court
finds that violations of the fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in such
State or subdivision: Provided, That the court need not authorize the appointment of examiners if
any incidents of denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color (1) have
been few in number and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or local action,
(2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable
probability of their recurrence in the future.
(b) If in a proceeding instituted by the Attorney General under any statute to enforce the
guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court finds that a
test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right of
any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, it shall suspend the use of
tests and devices in such State or political subdivisions as the court shall determine is appropriate
and for such period as it deems necessary.
(c) If in any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General under any statute to enforce the
guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court finds that
violations of the fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the
territory of such State or political subdivision, the court, in addition to such relief as it may grant,
shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it may deem appropriate and during such period no
voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to
voting different from that in force or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall beenforced unless and until the court finds that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice,
or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced if the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
28/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 26
of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed
an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the court's finding nor
the Attorney General's failure to object shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of
such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure (Transcript of Voting Rights
Act (1965)).
SEC. 5.Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set
forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from
that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will
not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and
unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for
failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure:
Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced
without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has
been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision
to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty
days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a
declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin
enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action
under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with
the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court.
SEC. 6.Whenever (a) a court has authorized the appointment of examiners pursuant to theprovisions of section 3(a), or (b) unless a declaratory judgment has been rendered under section
4(a), the Attorney General certifies with respect to any political subdivision named in, or
included within the scope of, determinations made under section 4(b) that (1) he has received
complaints in writing from twenty or more residents of such political subdivision alleging that
they have been denied the right to vote under color of law on account of race or color, and that
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
29/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 26
he believes such complaints to be meritorious, or (2) that, in his judgment (considering, among
other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to white persons registered to vote within
such subdivision appears to him to be reasonably attributable to violations of the fifteenth
amendment or whether substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts are being made within
such subdivision to comply with the fifteenth amendment), the appointment of examiners is
otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment, the Civil Service
Commission shall appoint as many examiners for such subdivision as it may deem appropriate to
prepare and maintain lists of persons eligible to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. Such
examiners, hearing officers provided for in section 9(a), and other persons deemed necessary by
the Commission to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Act shall be appointed,
compensated, and separated without regard to the provisions of any statute administered by the
Civil Service Commission, and service under this Act shall not be considered employment for
the purposes of any statute administered by the Civil Service Commission, except the provisions
of section 9 of the Act of August 2, 1939, as amended (5 U.S.C. 118i), prohibiting partisan
political activity: Provided, That the Commission is authorized, after consulting the head of the
appropriate department or agency, to designate suitable persons in the official service of the
United States, with their consent, to serve in these positions. Examiners and hearing officers
shall have the power to administer oaths (Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)).
Cause of Suit Against the Attorney General
Shelby County is located in Alabama, a covered jurisdiction. It has not sought bailout, as the
Attorney General has recently objected to voting changes proposed from within the county. See
App. 87a92a. Instead, in 2010, the county sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court
in Washington, D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting
Rights Act are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their
enforcement. The District Court ruled against the county and upheld the Act. 811 F. Supp. 2d424, 508 (2011). The court found that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to
justify reauthorizing 5 and continuing the 4(b) coverage formula (SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 7).
70&-#8 *) ,9" :*0$,
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
30/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 63
Held:Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used
as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre- clearance. Pp. 925.
(a) In Northwest Austin, this Court noted that the Voting Rights Act imposes current
burdens and must be justified by current needs and concluded that a departure from the
fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statutes disparate geo-
graphic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. 557 U. S., at 203. These
basic principles guide review of the question presented here. Pp. 917.
(1) State legislation may not contravene federal law. States retain broad autonomy,
however, in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Tenth
Amendment re- serves to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal
Government, including the power to regulate elections. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452,
461462. There is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States, which is
highly pertinent in assessing disparate treatment of States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It requires States to
beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise
have the right to enact and execute on their own. And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty,
the Act applies to only nine States (and additional counties). That is why, in 1966, this Court
described the Act as stringent and potent, Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. The Court
nonetheless upheld the Act, concluding that such an uncommon exercise of congressional
power could be justified by exceptional conditions. Id., at 334. Pp. 912.
(2) In 1966, these departures were justified by the blight of racial discrimination in
voting that had infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century,
Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308. At the time, the coverage formulathe means of linking the
exercise of the unprecedented authority with the problem that war- ranted itmade sense. The
Act was limited to areas where Congress found evidence of actual voting discrimination, and
the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: the use of tests and devices for voterregistration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the
national average. Id., at 330. The Court explained that [t]ests and devices are relevant to voting
dis- crimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate
is pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
31/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 64
number of actual voters. Ibid. The Court therefore concluded that the cover- age formula [was]
rational in both practice and theory. Ibid. Pp. 1213.
(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the
Voting Rights Act, [v]oter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions now approach
parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates
hold office at unprecedented levels. Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that
blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not
eased 5s restrictions or narrowed the scope of 4s coverage formula along the way. Instead
those extraordinary and unprecedented fea- tures have been reauthorized as if nothing has
changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because 5 applies only to those jurisdictions
singled out by 4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 1317.
(b) Section 4s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. Pp. 1725.
(1) In 1966, the coverage formula was rational in both practice and theory. Katzenbach,
supra, at 330. It looked to cause (discriminatory tests) and effect (low voter registration and
turnout), and tailored the remedy (preclearance) to those jurisdictions exhibiting both. By 2009,
however, the coverage formula raise[d] serious constitutional questions. Northwest Austin,
supra, at 204. Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula
captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s
and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned for over 40 years. And voter registration and
turnout numbers in covered States have risen dramatically. In 1965, the States could be divided
into those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout and those
without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the
Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if
it were. Pp. 1718.
(2) The Government attempts to defend the formula on grounds that it is reverse-
engineeredCongress identified the jurisdictions to be covered and then came up with criteriato describe them. Katzenbach did not sanction such an approach, reasoning instead that the
coverage formula was rational because the formula . . . was relevant to the problem. 383 U. S.,
at 329, 330. The Government has a fallback argumentbecause the formula was relevant in
1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States
identified in 1965. But this does not look to current political conditions, Northwest Austin,
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
32/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 62
supra, at 203, instead relying on a comparison between the States in 1965. But history did not
end in 1965. In assessing the current need[ ] for a preclearance system treating States
differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth
Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To
serve that purpose, Congressif it is to divide the Statesmust identify those jurisdictions to be
singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. Pp. 1821.
(3) Respondents also rely heavily on data from the record com- piled by Congress before
reauthorizing the Act. Regardless of how one looks at that record, no one can fairly say that it
shows anything approaching the pervasive, flagrant, widespread, and rampant
discrimination that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation in
1965. Katzenbach, supra, at 308, 315, 331. But a more fundamental problem remains: Congress
did not use that record to fashion a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. It instead
re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day. Pp.
2122.
679 F. 3d 848, reversed (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ET AL. Syllabus 2-4).
Excerpts from Chief Justice Roberts Majority Opinion
Regarding Section 5: The Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit affirmed. In assessing 5, the
D. C. Circuit considered six primary categories of evidence: Attorney General objections to
voting changes, Attorney General requests for more in- formation regarding voting changes,
successful 2 suits in covered jurisdictions, the dispatching of federal observers to monitor
elections in covered jurisdictions, 5 preclearance suits involving covered jurisdictions, and the
deter- rent effect of 5. See 679 F. 3d 848, 862863 (2012). After extensive analysis of the
record, the court accepted Congresss conclusion that 2 litigation remained inadequate in thecovered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters, and that 5 was therefore still
necessary. Id., at 873 (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 7-8).
Regarding Section 4:
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
33/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 66
Framework for Decision: In Northwest Austin, we stated that the Act imposes current
burdens and must be justified by current needs. 557 U. S., at 203. And we concluded that a
departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty re- quires a showing that a
statutes disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. Ibid.
These basic principles guide our review of the question before us (SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 9).
Regarding Supremacy Clause: State legislation may not contravene federal law. The
Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments
before they go into effect. A proposal to grant such authority to negative state laws was
considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to take
effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy Clause (SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 9).
Regarding Equal State Sovereignty:Not only do States retain sovereignty under the
Constitution, there is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.
Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960);
Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725726
(1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation was
and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559,
567 (1911). Indeed, the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious
operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized. Id., at 580. Coyle concerned
the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a
bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328329. At the same time, as we
made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly
pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203.The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends all
changes to state election law however innocuousuntil they have been precleared by federal
authorities in Washington, D. C. Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for
permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on
their own, subject of course to any injunction in a 2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
34/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 65
object to a preclearance request, longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR 51.9,
51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three- judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and
several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to
implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect
immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a noncovered jurisdiction is sued,
there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the
preclearance proceeding not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but
also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.
679 F. 3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below) (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v.
HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 10-11).
Regarding Original Ruling of Section 4: Shortly before enactment of the Voting
Rights Act, only 19.4 percent of African-Americans of voting age were registered to vote in
Alabama, only 31.8 percent in Louisiana, and only 6.4 percent in Mississippi. Id., at 313. Those
figures were roughly 50 percentage points or more below the figures for whites. Ibid.
In short, we concluded that [u]nder the compulsion of these unique circumstances,
Congress responded in a permissibly decisive manner. Id., at 334, 335. We also noted then and
have emphasized since that this extra- ordinary legislation was intended to be temporary, set to
expire after five years. Id., at 333; Northwest Austin, supra, at 199.
At the time, the coverage formulathe means of linking the exercise of the
unprecedented authority with the problem that warranted itmade sense. We found that
Congress chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed
necessary. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328. The areas where Congress found evidence of actual
voting discrimination shared two characteristics: the use of tests and devices for voter
registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below thenational average. Id., at 330. We explained that [t]ests and devices are relevant to voting
discrimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate is
pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the
number of actual voters. Ibid. We therefore concluded that the coverage formula [was] rational
in both practice and theory. Ibid. It accurately reflected those jurisdictions uniquely
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
35/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 67
characterized by voting discrimination on a pervasive scale, linking coverage to the devices
used to effectuate discrimination and to the resulting disenfranchisement. Id., at 308. The
formula ensured that the stringent remedies [were] aimed at areas where voting discrimination
ha[d] been most flagrant. Id., at 315 (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 12-13).
Regarding the Necessity of Section 4: Nearly 50 years later, things have changed
dramatically. Shelby County contends that the preclearance requirement, even without regard to
its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. Its arguments have a good deal of force. In the
covered jurisdictions, [v]oter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly
discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at
unprecedented levels. Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 202. The tests and devices that blocked
access to the ballot have been forbidden nation- wide for over 40 years. See 6, 84 Stat. 315;
102, 89 Stat. 400.
Those conclusions are not ours alone. Congress said the same when it reauthorized the
Act in 2006, writing that [s]ignificant progress has been made in eliminating first generation
barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of registered minority
voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State legislatures, and
local elected offices. 2(b)(1), 120 Stat. 577. The House Report elaborated that the number of
African-Americans who are registered and who turn out to cast ballots has increased
significantly over the last 40 years, particularly since 1982, and noted that [i]n some
circumstances, minorities register to vote and cast ballots at levels that surpass those of white
voters. H. R. Rep. No. 109478, p. 12 (2006). That Report also explained that there have been
significant increases in the number of African-Americans serving in elected offices; more
specifically, there has been approximately a 1,000 percent increase since 1965 in the number of
African-American elected officials in the six States originally covered by the Voting Rights Act.Id., at 18 (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
Opinion of the Court 13-14).
Regarding the Formula: By 2009, however, we concluded that the coverage formula
raise[d] serious constitutional questions. Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 204. As we explained,
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
36/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 67
a statutes current burdens must be justified by current needs, and any disparate geographic
coverage must be sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. Id., at 203. The coverage
formula met that test in 1965, but no longer does so.
Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula
captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s
and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned nationwide for over 40 years. 6, 84 Stat. 315;
102, 89 Stat. 400. And voter registration and turnout numbers in the covered States have risen
dramatically in the years since. H. R. Rep. No. 109478, at 12. Racial disparity in those numbers
was compelling evidence justifying the preclearance remedy and the coverage formula. See, e.g.,
Katzenbach, supra, at 313, 329330. There is no longer such a disparity.
In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting
tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress
based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those
lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were (SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 17-18).
Final Conclusions of the Court: Striking down an Act of Congress is the gravest and
most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform. Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142,
148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care
to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead
resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed
our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the
coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice
but to declare 4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis
for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nation- wide ban on racial discriminationin voting found in 2. We issue no holding on 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress
may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite
to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an extraordinary
departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal
Government. Presley, 502 U. S., at 500501. Our country has changed, and while any racial
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
37/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 67
discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to
remedy that problem speaks to current conditions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
reversed (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
Opinion of the Court 24).
Excerpts from Justice Ginsbergs Dissenting Opinion
Regarding Reauthorization Meeting the Rational-Basis Test: For three reasons, legislation
reauthorizing an existing statute is especially likely to satisfy the minimal requirements of the
rational-basis test. First, when reauthorization is at issue, Congress has already assembled a
legislative record justifying the initial legislation. Congress is en titled to consider that
preexisting record as well as the record before it at the time of the vote on reauthorization. This
is especially true where, as here, the Court has repeatedly affirmed the statutes constitutionality
and Congress has adhered to the very model the Court has upheld. See id., at 174 (The
appellants are asking us to do nothing less than overrule our decision in South Carolina v.
Katzenbach . . . , in which we upheld the constitutionality of the Act.); Lopez v. Monterey
County, 525 U. S. 266, 283 (1999) (similar).
Second, the very fact that reauthorization is necessary arises because Congress has built a
temporal limitation into the Act. It has pledged to review, after a span of years (first 15, then 25)
and in light of contemporary evidence, the continued need for the VRA. Cf. Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U. S. 306, 343 (2003) (anticipating, but not guaranteeing, that, in 25 years, the use of racial
preferences [in higher education] will no longer be necessary).
Third, a reviewing court should expect the record sup porting reauthorization to be less
stark than the record originally made. Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one
earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute was working, there would be
less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowedto renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence
of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime. See Persily 193194.
This is not to suggest that congressional power in this area is limitless. It is this Courts
responsibility to ensure that Congress has used appropriate means. The question meet for judicial
review is whether the chosen means are adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
38/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 67
in view. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). The Courts role, then, is not to substitute
its judgment for that of Congress, but to determine whether the legislative record sufficed to
show that Congress could rationally have determined that [its chosen] provisions were appro-
priate methods. City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 176177.
In summary, the Constitution vests broad power in Congress to protect the right to vote,
and in particular to combat racial discrimination in voting. This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed
Congress prerogative to use any rational means in exercise of its power in this area. And both
precedent and logic dictate that the rational-means test should be easier to satisfy, and the burden
on the statutes challenger should be higher, when what is at issue is the reauthorization of a
remedy that the Court has previously affirmed, and that Congress found, from con temporary
evidence, to be working to advance the legislatures legitimate objective (SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. GINSBURG, J., dissenting11-12).
Regarding the Courts Ruling on the Coverage Formula: The Court holds 4(b) invalid on
the ground that it is irrational to base coverage on the use of voting tests 40 years ago, when
such tests have been illegal since that time. Ante, at 23. But the Court disregards what Congress
set about to do in enacting the VRA. That extraordinary legislation scarcely stopped at the
particular tests and devices that happened to exist in 1965. The grand aim of the Act is to secure
to all in our polity equal citizen ship stature, a voice in our democracy undiluted by race. As the
record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear, second-generation barriers to
minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as at tempted substitutes for the
first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions. See supra, at
56, 8, 1517.
The sad irony of todays decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has
proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRAs success in eliminating the specific
devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. Ante, at 2122, 2324. With
that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself. The same assumptionthat
the problem could be solved when particular methods of voting discrimination are identified and
eliminatedwas indulged and proved wrong repeatedly prior to the VRAs enactment. Unlike
prior statutes, which singled out particular tests or devices, the VRA is grounded in Congress
recognition of the variety and persistence of measures designed to impair minority voting
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
39/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 67
rights. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 311; supra, at 2. In truth, the evolution of voting discrimination
into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as
preclearance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.
Beyond question, the VRA is no ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary because
Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the
purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment. For a half century, a concerted effort has been
made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the
subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.
The record supporting the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA is also extraordinary. It was
described by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as one of the most extensive
considerations of any piece of legislation that the United States Congress has dealt with in the
2712 years he had served in the House. 152 Cong. Rec. H5143 (July 13, 2006) (statement of
Rep. Sensenbrenner).
After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the
VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the
judgment of Congress that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the
vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th
amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the
Constitution. 2006 Reauthorization 2(b)(7), 120 Stat. 577. That determination of the body
empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments by appropriate legislation merits this
Courts utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress
decision (SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET
AL. GINSBURG, J., dissenting 35-37).
Summaries for Cases used in Shelby Case
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (S.Ct. 1966)
Facts:The Voting Rights Act of 1965 contained provisions attempting to prevent racial
discrimination in the voting process by offering remedies against such unjust practices as
requiring literacy or good moral character in order to vote.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
40/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 53
Issue:May Congress pass laws to carry out the provisions of constitutional amendments or to
exercise congressional powers?
Rule:(Warren, C.J.) Congress may constitutionally enact statutes that validly enforce a
constitutional amendment or that are necessary and proper for carrying out enumerated or
implied powers.
Dissent:(Black, J.) It is doubtful that this suit presents a justiciable case or controversy. In
addition, at least one of the Acts provisions unjustly blurs the constitutional distinction between
state and federal power by requiring federal approval of certain states laws and constitutional
amendments (Case Overviews).
Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder
Facts of the Case:Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("Northwest")
sought a declaratory judgment exempting it from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and
alternatively argued that Section 5 was unconstitutional. Section 5 prohibits "covered
jurisdictions" states and political subdivisions with histories of racial discrimination in voting
from changing their voting procedures without permission from either the Attorney General or a
three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The district court held that Northwest was not eligible for exemption from Section 5 reasoning
that it did not qualify as a "political subdivision" as defined in the Voting Rights Act. Moreover,
the court rejected Northwest's argument that Congress' 2006 extension of Section 5 for another
25 years made the provision unconstitutional. Rather, the court held that given the
documentation of contemporary racial discrimination in "covered jurisdictions", Congress acted
rationally in extending the provision, rendering Section 5 constitutional.
Questions
1) Does Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") permit any "political subunit" of a
"covered state" from seeking exemption from Section 5 of the VRA when it permits "political
subdivisions" within "covered states" from seeking such exemptions?
2) Was the 2006 extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a valid exercise of
congressional power when the Congressional Recordindicated no persistent patter of "covered
states" attempting to evade the enforcement of the VRA? (NORTHWEST AUSTIN
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
41/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 54
MUNICIPAL v. HOLDER)
Conclusion:
Decision:9 votes for Northwest Austin Municipal, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:Voting Rights Act
Yes. Not answered. The Supreme Court held that the VRA permits all political subdivisions,
including the district, to seek to bailout from the preclearance requirements of the VRA. With
Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens,
Antonin G. Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G.
Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, and in part by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court reasoned that the
language of the VRA did not constrict the availability of a bailout for political subunits like
Northwest Municipal. Moreover, the Court reasoned that considering that only 17 of 12,000
jurisdictions covered by the VRA had bailed out suggested that Congress had never intended for
it to be so difficult to bailout.
Justice Thomas wrote separately, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. He
criticized the Court for not addressing the constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA. He argued
that he thought it did in fact exceed Congress' power to enforce the 15th Amendment, rendering
it unconstitutional( NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL v. HOLDER).
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
42/284
!"#"$%& (#)*$+%,-*# ."/$0%$1 2345
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 52
Works Cited
"Case Overviews - South Carolina v. Katzenbach (S.Ct. 1966)." Casebriefs. Web.
.
NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL v. HOLDER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law. 07 January 2014. .
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
GINSBURG, J., dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States. 25 June 2013. Web.
.
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Opinion of
the Court. Supreme Court of the United States. 25 June 2013. Web.
.
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. Syllabus.
Supreme Court of the United States. 25 June 2013. Web.
.
"Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)." Our Documents - United States Federal
Government.The Avalon Project at Yale University, Web.
.
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
43/284
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
44/284
!"#$%&'"() !%+",#"- ./01
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 11
!"#$%&'"()
2334"$#546%
!"#$%&'"(7 "#$ %&'()*+,$ -.&/$0 '1 *#+2 /$-(*$ 1(332 .%'0 *#$ 0$4(*+,$ *' ',$&*.&05 '&
/+2%&',$5 *#$ 6.%&$7$ 8'.&*92 &.3+04: "#+2 +2 -$)(.2$ *#$ /$)+2+'0 #(2 (3&$(/; -$$0
&$0/$&$/ (0/ *#.2 *#$&$ +2 ( 4&$(*$& -.&/$0 '1 %&''1 *' 2#'< *#(* *#$ /$)+2+'0
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
45/284
!"#$%&'"() !%+",#"- ./01
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 12
!"#$%&'"(3 "#$ %&'($)$ *+&(, -. ,#$ .+/$ -0,$('($,$( +1 ,#$ *+0.,-,&,-+0 203 ,#&. -, )&.,
.$$4 ,+ '(+,$5, ,#$ (-6#,. +1 2// -03-7-3&2/. 8-,#-0 .+5-$,9: 0+, ;&., ,#$ )2;+(-,9 +1 '$+'/$$ :1-$ A$:1.-$ )+ '%&8 $-+1A&)-#$-
1 A.,9$% =', +#$ 1==),61+)>$ +$16-D 4#)- =,16$0',( =',:$- +$16- +' ,$=$,$%:$ ?.-+):$
@'A$,+-B '2)%)'%/ 0#):# 61%8 618 %'+ A$ 1A&$ +' 9'D F',$'>$,/ +#)- 1&-' =',:$- 8'.,'22'%$%+- +' 9$1& 0)+# +#$ =,16$0',( 1+ +#$ +'2 '= +#$ ,$A.++1&D 4#)- &)6)+- +#$ *,'.%9 '=
1==),61+)>$ +$16- 1%9 =',:$- +#$6 +' =)*#+ 1% .2#)&& A1++&$ +' *1)% 1::$-- +' 0)%%)%* +#$
,'.%9D "#$% 8'. 2&1:$ 8'., -+,'%*$-+ 1,*.6$%+ 1+ +#$ A'++'6 '= 8'., :1-$/ )+ )- 6',$
&)($&8 +#1+ +$16- 0)&& -2$%9 >$,8 &)++&$ +)6$ '% )+ A$:1.-$ +#$8 0'.&9 #1>$ -2$%+ 1 &'+ '=
+)6$ '% +#$ =,16$0',(D
':1:8/ 1%9 %$*1+)>$ +$16- 1,$ %'+ 1&&'0$9 +'
:#''-$ 8'., 19>':1:8 =', 8'.D 4#),9/ 8'. -#'.&9 1%-0$, +#)- =,16$0',( A8 %'+)%* +#1+ 1-
&'%* 1- 8'. 1,$ 2,'>)9)%* :'%-+)+.+)'%1& 1,*.6$%+- +#1+ 1==),6 +#$ 5.2,$6$ 7'.,+B- ,.&)%*/
8'. 1,$ +$:#%):1&&8 1,*.)%* +#1+ +#$8 ,)*#+&8 9$:)9$9 +#$ :1-$D
-
7/26/2019 Champion Briefs-Feb 2014
48/284
!"#$%&'"() !%+",#"- ./01
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 12
!"#$%&'"(3 "#$ %&'($) *+ ,#$ )$-.,/0$ /1 1*2$23 ,* 4'*0$ ,#., ,#$ ($5/1/*) *+ ,#$ 6&4'$7$
8*&', 9.1 /)5*''$5,: "#$ )$-.,/0$ 5.) +&2+/22 ,#$/' %&'($) /) . +$9 9.31: ;/'1,< ,#$ )$-.,/0$
5.) 4'*0$ ,#., 6$5,/*) = /1 5*)1,/,&,/*).2: 6$5*)(< ,#$ )$-.,/0$ 5.) .'-&$ ,#., *,#$'
1$5,/*)1 *+ ,#$ >*,/)- ?/-#,1 @5, .'$ &)5*)1,/,&,/*).2A ,#/1 /1 %$5.&1$ ,#$ 6&4'$7$ 8*&',
($5/($( ,#., *,#$' 1$5,/*)1 9$'$ 5*)1,/,&,/*).2 9#$) /, ($5/($( ,#., 6$5,/*) = 9.1
&)5*)1,/,&,/*).2< 9#/5# 7$.)1 ,#., /+ *,#$' 1$5,/*)1 .'$ &)5*)1,/,&,/*).2 ,#$) ,#$ 6&4'$7$
8*&', 9'*)-23 ($5/($(: "#/'(< ,#., ,#$ 7$,'/5 .)( .'-&7$),1 ,#$ 6&4'$7$ 8*&', &1$( ,*
4'*0$ 6$5,/*) = &)5*)1,/,&,/*).2 (*$1 )*, 7$$, ,#$ 1,.)(.'( ,* ($$7 1*7$,#/)-
&)5*)1,/,&,/*).2 *' 9$'$ 1/7423 /)5*''$5,:
45%6 7' ,)%3 "#/1 +'.7$9*'B 5.) %$ &1$( /) .22 5.1$1: C$ 1&'$ ,* ,.B$ *&, ,#$ 7$,#*(1 3*&.'$ )*, &1/)- /) 3*&' 5.1$: "#/1 1$,1 &4 . )$-.,/0$ 5.1$ ,#., 5.) #.0$ ,#'$$ 5*),$),/*)1< *)$
+*22*9/)- $.5# *+ ,#$ .(0*5.5/$1 *&,2/)$( .%*0$: "#/1 7/)/7/D$1 ,#$ .7*&), *+ *++$)1$ 3*&
)$$( /) *'($' ,* 9/) ,#$ '*&)( %3 $1,.%2/1#/)- ,#., 3*& #.0$ ,#'$$ &)/E&$ .)( 1$4.'.,$
4.,#1 ,* 0/5,*'3:
8'& 7' 96)&%"3 "#/1 +'.7$9*'B (*$1)F, )$5$11.'/23 7.B$ /, #.'($' +*' @++/'7.,/0$ ,$.71
,* 9/) ,#$ '*&)(A /, 7$'$23 7.B$1 /, $.1/$' +*' ,#$ G$-.,/0$: H*& 1#*&2( .44'*.5# ,#/1
+'.7$9*'B %3 $I42./)/)- ,#., ,#$ %&'($) *+ ,#$ .++/'7.,/0$ ,* $/,#$' ,* '$.++/'7 ,#$
($5/1/*)< /+ 3*& 5.1$ /1 5*)(&5/0$ ,* (*/)- 1*< *' 4'*0/($ . 1/)-2$ 4.,# ,#., J&1,/+/$1 .)
&)5*)1,/,&,/*).2 ($5/1/*) %$5.&1$ ,#., /1 #*9 ,#$ +'.7$9*'B *+ ,#$ 6&4'$7$ 8*&', 9*'B1:
K*'$*0$'< 3*& 1#*&2( .'-&$ ,#., ,#$ G$-.,/0$ #.1 ,* 4'*0$ ,#., ,#$ 1$5,/*) /1
&)5*)1,/,&,/*).2 .1 9$22 .1 4'*0$ ,#., /, /1 5*)1,/,&,/*).2 &)($' 1*7$ 1*', *+ 1,.)(.'( 1#2$#3),)1),$#.;< =*137 ,( )*'%' ,3 #$ $(('#3' $# ',)*'% 3,&' $( )*' %$1#&7
-'.#,#> )*.) #',)*'% )'.- 2.# 5%$/' )*' 2$#3),)1),$#.;,)8 $( )*' 3'2),$#7 )*'# 8$1 3*$1;&
/$)' #'>.),/' 9'2.13' )*' +((,%-.),/' &,& #$) -'') )*' *,>* 91%&'# $( 5%$$( )*.) 9'(.;;3 )*'
415%'-' 6$1%) )$ &''- 3$-')*,#> 1#2$#3),)1),$#.;.),/' 2.3' 9'2.13' ,) -'%';8
&,-,#,3*'3 8$1% 91%&'# ,# )*' %$1#& .#& '3).9;,3*'3 )*.) )*' .((,%-.),/' *.3 . 3)%$#>'%
91%&'# $( 5%$$( 9'2.13' )*' 415%'-' 6$1%) #''&3 3)%$#> '/,&'#2'7 #$) 5$)'#),.;,),'3 $(*.%-7 )$ %1;' 3$-')*,#> 1#2$#3),)1),$#.;< A$%'$/'%7 )*,3 *';53 .#8 2.3' 9'2.13' ,( .) )*'
'#& $( )*' %$1#&7 )*'%' ,3 #$ .((,%-.),/' %'.3$# )$ /$)' ($% ',)*'% )'.- )*'# ,) ($%2'3 )*'
B1&>' )$ &'(.1;) )$ )*' #'>.),/'#'"+ ;'0?*& 3#00#@). !"?#" >#'"+ !")1).)*+
Argument:The Supreme Courts role is to establish the permissibility and constitutionality of
laws. One of the methods by which they do this is through following prior court precedent.
Warrant:Throughout the Supreme Courts history, justices have repeatedly claimed that court
precedent is the manner in which future court decisions are reached. The judiciary can only
fulfill its role in a consistent manner if it refers to previous court decisions.
Cross, Frank B., and James F. Spriggs. "Citations in the US Supreme Court: An
Empirical Study of Their Use and Significance." University of Illinois Law Review
(2010): 489. .
Of all citations, those to prior opinions are the most common,
demonstrating the Courts respect for stare decisis. The doctrine of stare
decisis is said to reflect the fundamental values of the legal process.
Alexander Hamilton declared that it was indispensable that [judges] should
be bound down by strict rules and precedents in order to avoid an
arbitrary discretion in the courts.The Court has declared that [a]dherence to
precedent, is, in the usual cases, a cardinal and guiding principle of
adjudication.In the plurality opinion declining to overrule Roe v. Wade,
Justices OConnor, Kennedy and Souter declared that respect for precedent
was the very concept of the rule of law.