Search
Create
Log in
Sign up
Log in
Sign up
Politics; Court Cases
STUDY
Flashcards
Learn
Write
Spell
Test
PLAY
Match
Gravity
Terms in this set (29)
Minor vs. Happersett
(1875) Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote under the the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Later Overruled by 19th Amendment in 1920
Richardson vs. Ramirez
(1974) Plaintiffs who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences challenging a California state constitutional provision that permanently disenfranchised anyone convicted of an "infamous crime," from voting
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state had compelling interest to disenfranchise felony voters under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment
Crawford vs. Marion County
(2008) Indiana law required all voters casting a ballot in person to present a United States or Indiana photo ID
In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence
Nixon vs. Herndon
Texas law forbidding minorities from voting in the Texas Democratic Party primary.
Nixon sought an injunction against the statute in the federal district court. The district court dismissed the suit, and Nixon appealed to the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court Decided unconstitutional due to direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment
Smith vs. Allwright
(1944) (2 of 3)
Texas claimed that the Democratic Party was a private organization that could set its own rules of membership under Freedom of Association clause of the First Amendment .
Smith, a black voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official Allwright for the right to vote in a primary election being conducted by the Democratic Party
The Supreme Court Decided White only Primary was Unconstitutional on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law
Got around it by switching from Primary to Pre primary
Terry vs. Adams
Terry v. Adams (1953), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held white-only pre-primary elections to be unconstitutional. It was the last in a series of court cases addressing the system of white primaries designed to disfranchise Southern black voters. (Before it was Smith v Allwright and Nixon v Herndon) significant because regardless of the 15th and 14th amendments being adopted in the 1800's, state governments like texas were able to loophole and change the rules of the game to effectively completely disfranchise and silence Southern black voters for a generation...
Bullock vs. Carter
(1972) In order to appear on the ballot, candidates for local office in Texas primary elections were required to pay filing fees that ranged as high as $8,900
In a 7-0 decision the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Texas primary election filing fee system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was unreasonable
2 ground on which property requirements were justified:
1) men who possessed property had a unique "stake in society" aka were more committed members of the community
2) property owners alone possessed sufficient independence to warrant their having a voice in governance
colonies instituted voting prerequisites such as:
residency requirements and citizenship requirements
Roe vs. Wade
(1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
1. Primary
means by which parties select candidates for general election
2. Open primary
both dems and repubs can vote on candidates aka results in more moderate candidates
3. Closed primary
only party members can vote
4. semi-open primary
you have to declare which party youre going to vote for
5. semi-closed primary
you have to be firmly registered in that party before you vote there
6. non-partisan blanket or top two primary
more about ideology than it is about party, top 2 candidates get on ballot doesn't matter about party
1. Ross Perot
3rd party candidate who won more electoral college votes than other third party member, yet still lost, major parties take the ideas of minor parties and incorporate it into their own, he helped Bill Clinton win cuz he took votes from Bush
2. Plurality Election
candidate who gets the largest # of votes win
3. Single member district
encourages a 2 party system (what we have)
4. Proportional representation/ multi member districts
really encourages 3rd parties
5. Electoral college
when we vote for president were actually voting for who we want our electoral college to vote for, delegates must vote for what the states want (depends on state), become a delegate by becoming a super dedicated member of your party, electoral college changes the way candidates do their election and which states they campaign in
7. Ballot access laws
every single state its hard to get on the ballot and don't want the working man to get on the ballot
Stringency of law
how the court decides how constitutional the law is or isn't
Ex: Shelby County vs Holder
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
provides that certain states (racist ones) have to get approved by the states about their voting laws and couldn't do it internally and had to pre-clear laws... racist states rushed to put in voter ID laws.. later said it was unconstitutional
Ex: Shelby county v holder
Burdick v. Takushi
usually judges have certain standards to understand whether things are constitutional.. thru Burdick they did a 2 tier test where they just need to have a reason of why the vote is being ****ed
Ex: Crawford v. Marion County
HAVA
(Help America Vote Act): law passed by congress supposed to make states re-approve their voter laws, aka every states congress came up to debate, because of that a bunch of voter ID laws introduced and added, opened the door for states to pass voter ID laws, introduced minimum requirement
ACORN demonization
program that really wanted ppl to vote and registered ppl to vote, repubs thought acorn was recruiting democratic voters so worked to demonize it, repubs (Stewart) came up with all of these things they did (like make ppl pay for registration) and conservative political players used that in a court case and news media played a huge role in this
EX: this is a great example of "playing the game"
US Attorney Scandal
conservatives wanted to keep up these voter ID laws, Bush told attorneys to go find fraud, but they found nothing, Bush administration fired 7 US Attorneys in one day for not prosecuting fake fraud cases, scandal is bcuz they wouldn't prosecute cases that didn't have a claim
Shelby County vs Holder
(2013) Case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices
Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula
;