Voting Rights - Round 2

In the wake of last month's Supreme Court decision to strike down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department and the federal government are making known their revamped approach to combating discrimination and unlawful hinderances in the realm of election voting.  At the time of the high court's 5-4 ruling I wrote a post outlining what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 actually was, but now I want to provide a few updates on the current landscape.  

On June 25, the Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) as unconstitutional, instructing Congress to determine a new formula for pre-clearance.  As I discussed in my earlier post, section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is the provision of the law which determined what states and districts needed to obtain a clearance with the Justice Department before changing their election laws.  The clearance formula was defined as those districts which had voting tests in place in November 1964 and had less than 50% turnout in that years presidential election.  Although, if a district or state was able to prove there had been no cases of voter discrimination for ten years, they would be allowed to apply for pre-clearance removal.  It is important to note that while the Supreme Court threw out section 4(b), they upheld section 5, which declares states as determined by a Congressional formula must obtain clearance from the Justice Department when seeking to change any voting law or ordinance.  So while the high court removed a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they upheld the framework and left it up to Congress to develop a new way in determining which states will be subjected to pre-clearance.

The New Front:  While the country waits for Congress to determine a new formula to apply section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department is taking steps to continue the fight against voter discrimination.  While many might suggest voter discrimination and disenfranchisement is a thing of the past, the facts tell a different story.  In the past few years several states have passed sweeping new voter ID laws and state-wide redistricting, which many have argued unfairly affect minorities, the youth, and the poor.  Section 4(b) allowed the Justice Department to take a closer look and slow down many of these laws passing through the state legislatures, however, with the Supreme Court's ruling all of the previously covered districts were suddenly free from all of the law's requirements.  In fact, the state of Texas took only two hours after the Supreme Court ruling to announce they were implementing their new strict voter ID law and redistricting map.  The high court's ruling means the Justice Department would have to take new steps in order to apply section 5 and fight to protect the rights of at risk voters.  

Last Thursday, the Justice Department filed a "statement of interest" on a current suit in a federal court in San Antonio, asking the court to impose a ten year mandate of pre-clearance for any voting law change for the state of Texas.  The Justice Department claimed in their filing that in Texas, there is a history of "pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities", and the state should be required to get clearance for any voting law changes.  The federal court in San Antonio will issue their ruling soon and we will have a better understanding of how the Justice Department can enforce the remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act.  Numerous other states have attempted to implement similar redistricting and voter ID laws, while the DOJ has vowed to take the fight to those individual states just as they have done in Texas.      

Immigration: The Front Lines

Another summer headline dominating the cable news cycle  has been the effort in Washington, D.C. to reform our nation's inept immigration system.  The topic of immigration has generally been a hot-button social issue, but there are enormous legal implications at play as well.  Our country is a nation of immigrants, yet the topic stokes understandable tensions, passions, and opinions.  I wanted to write a post focusing on the current legal aspect of the immigration reform battle taking place across the country.  

The U.S. constitution delegates exclusive authority to the federal government to control relations with foreign nations, therefore, the courts have consistently ruled the federal government has absolute power with regard to immigration policy and enforcement.  In the past several years, a constitutional battle has emerged between state laws aimed at implementing their own immigration policy versus the exclusive authority of the federal government to regulate immigration policy.  

S.B. 1070:  While the tension between state and federal authority in the realm of immigration has long been an area of contention in our country, the effort by Arizona to pass S.B. 1070, a strict law which made it a state crime not to carry immigration papers among other measures, reignited the discussion of immigration reform across the country.   Currently, federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for more than 30 days to register with the federal government and to carry their registration documents on them at all times; failure to do so is federal misdemeanor crime.  The Arizona law additionally made the failure to carry documents a state crime, while also allowing law enforcement officials to determine a person's immigration status during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  The Arizona law also allowed for the police to arrest an individual based on "reasonable suspicion" the person may be in the country illegally and had committed a crime that was punishable with deportation.  The law also made it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for jobs in the state and allowed the police to check an individual's immigration status with any legal contact, which could be as simple as walking past someone on the sidewalk.  The provisions of the Arizona law sparked numerous protests across Arizona and throughout the country, with the primary concern being how a police officer would determine "reasonable suspicion" of someone being of illegal immigration status without resorting to racial profiling or other discriminatory tactics.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 to strike down 3 of the 4 provisions of the Arizona law, citing the federal government's absolute authority over immigration policy across the country.  The court also used the Arizona ruling as a direct warning to other states attempting to enact strict illegal immigration laws, saying their attempts will meet the same fate of the Arizona law.  The Justices also rejected Arizona's claim that their law was an attempt to help the federal government.  The provision the court allowed to stand, the section allowing police officers to check a person's immigration status during a lawful stop or detention, was only upheld because it had not yet gone into effect and therefore the court could not rule on something that was not yet in existence.  However, the majority had a stark warning for that provision as well, indicating a likely court challenge will come before them again with possibly similar outcomes. 

The Court's Warning:  When the Supreme Court struck down most of the Arizona law, they issued a direct warning to other states attempting to impose similar immigration laws: their laws will be voided as well.  Several states apparently did not heed the high court's warning and a string of judicial defeats have proven the Supreme Court right.  The single and primary reason state immigration laws are found to be invalid is because according to the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction as it pertains to immigration policy.  Arguments that the federal government is not doing its job or the laws are too weak may have merit, but legally the states cannot assume a power that has already been enumerated to the federal government and they will lose this legal battle every single time.

Monday, July 22:  The Fifth U.S. Circuit  Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down an ordinance of a Dallas, Texas suburb that sought to bar landlords from renting to immigrants living in the U.S. without documentation.  Farmers Branch, Texas passed the ordinance in 2006, citing an unwelcome influx of undocumented immigrants, but court fees and legal battles since then have cost upward of $6 million dollars with some residents wondering if the fight is worth it.  The ruling by the court of appeals struck down the Texas suburb's ordinance, with the judges citing the Supreme Court's rationale that the law would infringe on the federal government's exclusive authority to dictate immigration policy.  The appeals court additionally raised concern as to how the ordinance would be enforced and upheld. 

Tuesday, July 23:  The Fourth U.S. District Court of Appeals in Virginia struck down a South Carolina law that would have made it a crime for illegal immigrants to "shelter" themselves from detection and a crime for anyone participating in the sheltering.  The Fourth U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled the South Carolina law was pre-empted by federal law and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court also expressed concern as to how the law would have been enforced and carried out. 

Friday, July 26:  The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia struck down a small Pennsylvania town's ordinance that would have denied permits to businesses that hire people in the country illegally and fined landlords who rent to them.  Like the previous cases, the Third U.S. Circuit of Appeals found the Pennsylvania town's law was pre-empted by federal immigration law and raised issue with how the ordinance would have been enforced.

There is a clear pattern at work in all of these cases and the Supreme Court gave warning to the states when they ruled on S.B. 1070.  Federal authority with regard to immigration policy will always usurp state attempts to regulate immigration.  I fully understand the concerns with those who believe states should have the right to govern themselves, however, we are a nation of laws and according the the Constitution the federal government's authority as it pertains to immigration is exclusive.  States are free to continue writing their own immigration laws, but they will undoubtedly meet the same fate as the cases above.  As always, if you have any comments or opinions please feel free to share!

The Game Changer

Deciding to go to law school, a career as an attorney, and all that goes into working in the field of law can be a complex and difficult process for some.  For others, the decision to be an attorney was always second nature and they knew from their freshman year as an undergraduate they were destined to take the bar and be a lawyer.  In previous posts I have discussed the perils of student loans and interviewed a current attorney about the changes within the industry, however, my decision to go to law school was not really a conventional path, but it is a story I wanted to share.

Early in my collegiate career I had the opportunity to intern for a Congressman in Washington, D.C., and work in the exciting atmosphere of our nation's capitol.  At the time, I was extremely interested in politics and government, and set my sights on law school in hopes of returning to Washington one day soon.  I loved everything about the D.C. and the rich sense of history invoked a passion and drive to one day contribute to my government, that is, until I actually stepped foot on Capitol Hill.  I was young and naive, but my eyes were quickly opened to the reality of the methods of our elected officials.  When I arrived in Washington for my internship I already had my heart set on law school, but my reasoning was based around the strong desire to make a life and career working for my government.  While I wasn't necessarily driven to become a politician, I thought a career in a government agency, the Justice Department, or with a private firm would be my chosen course.  My first few days were a whirlwind of excitement, intrigue, and passion, yet this fire would soon be extinguished.

I saw law school as my ticket to a career and life in Washington, D.C., and even found myself daydreaming about the future as I walked to work those first few days.  I showed up with an energy to absorb as much as possible, participate as much as possible, and lay a foundation for my future.  However, it did not take long for the reality to sink in.  The public, interns, and anyone with interest is able to sit in on congressional hearings which are constantly in progress on a wide range of topics.  One Monday morning I got a ticket to sit in on a transportation hearing, and I know to many it sounds mundane and far from interesting, but I was filled with excitement to see a real hearing and the constitution at work!  Instead of a bustling and energetic debate, what I saw caused the first crack in my foundation of hope in our government and drive for law school.  Not a single congressman from either party even bothered to show up, instead they left the individuals testifying to speak to a semi-circle of empty seats.  I kept waiting for the members to show up at any moment, so I sat there for nearly two hours as transportation experts, scientists, and community leaders testified to empty chairs.

Now my naivety had not fully been exposed or accepted by my logical mind, so I set myself up for additional heartbreak. I remember walking home to my rented room and justifying the zero attendance by telling myself, "Oh a major meeting must have come up" or "Perhaps a national security issue was going on simultaneously", along with a flurry of other excuses all in an effort to keep my passion untarnished.  I had already based my decision to attend law school on my innate passion for the system of government set up by the founding fathers.  To have my faith broken would leave my basis for law school shattered.  The very same week, I waited in line to be one of a few hundred citizens to receive tickets to watch the House of Representatives vote on a number of bills before a week-long recess.  While my disappointment in the empty hearing meeting was still fresh, the excitement of witnessing our elected officials vote on tangible bills was going to be more than enough to reinvigorate my passion.  As the procedural technicalities began, I wondered when the congressional members were going to file in for voting and debate.  After a little while, a lone congressman came through a backdoor and walked up to the podium.  As he was officially recognized and given the floor and time allotment to speak, he began his prepared remarks to an empty chamber.  He stood there and gave, at times, a passionate speech to literally no one.  Almost every single desk and chair were empty, with the only people present the tourists up in the gallery with me or a few staffers pushing papers up front.  This is what his impassioned speech looked like:
 

I sat through the congressman's entire speech to an empty House chamber.  As he walked away from the podium, the voting and roll call commenced.  Perhaps a few other congressmen and congresswomen slipped in to cast their vote, but they were nearly impossible to pick out among the staffers and interns.  After the 15 minutes of voting, NV (not vote) and PRES (present) easily received more voted than YAY and NAY combined.  I walked out of the Capitol and finally accepted reality.  Regardless of political party, our elected leaders do not debate one another, listen to their colleagues speeches, or even hardly show up for votes.  I saw more congressmen on the cable news rounds in the hour following the pathetic vote, and I finally grasped what our legislative branch had devolved to.  The rest of my internship was only one disappointing experience after another, and it became abundantly clear our congressional leaders put raising campaign money and television sound bites vastly ahead of their actual congressional duties.  I saw no debates, conversations or impassioned deliberations, rather only empty chairs, empty chambers and empty promises.

I tell this story not to complain or harp on the already known fact of congressional ineptitude, but to illustrate the revaluation of myself that ensued.  I had based my entire reasoning for law school on wanting to work in the government and the amazing city of our nation's capitol.  While I still love D.C. and all the history, I eventually realized my desire for law school and my future cannot hinge on factors outside of my control.  I now want to attend law school to further my education and to gain a legal focus where I can contribute to society in a beneficial and positive manner.  I am a passionate individual and I know I can channel my passion for law into a focus where I hopefully can contribute to a discussion and environment which is literally the exact opposite from that on Capitol Hill.  I simply understand that I will be most effective and influential by helping others, rather than only myself.