South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process'

12 Pages Posted: 31 May 2013 Last revised: 19 Nov 2013

See all articles by Ellen D. Katz

Ellen D. Katz

University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: March 29, 2013

Abstract

The pending challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act presents the Court with competing narratives, one of a problem solved and a statute that has run its course, and another depicting a vulnerable work in progress that requires the sustained attention the VRA provides. There is an additional narrative the Justices should consider when they evaluate how far places subject to the VRA’s regional provisions have evolved. This narrative posits that Section 5 is far from obsolete, and operates not only as a restraint on the ill-intentioned, but also as an affirmative tool of governance. On this account, one of the VRA’s most critical, albeit least appreciated, functions is the way in which it helps public officials navigate complex contemporary questions concerning equality of opportunity in the political process. A good example of the VRA’s role in this regard is found in the “evolutionary process” through which voter identification recently came to be approved in South Carolina.

Keywords: Voting Rights Act, Shelby County, voter identification

JEL Classification: J70, J71

Suggested Citation

Katz, Ellen, South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process' (March 29, 2013). 113 Columbia Law Review Sidebar 55-65 (2013), U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 360, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2272135

Ellen Katz (Contact Author)

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
LR 960
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States
734-647-6241 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
65
Abstract Views
550
Rank
618,039
PlumX Metrics