Skip to main content

An introduction to this diary series can be found here. Jim Crow 2.0

Before taking up other issues such as the apportionment of legislative districts and voting rights, it would be useful to explore the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the varied history of its interpretation and application. At the end of the civil war the US was a nation divided. The north had prevailed militarily by its greater population and economic strength. However, most white southerners were entirely unwilling to see the error of their ways. The original constitution had attempted to sweep important issues that were already dividing the nation under the rug. In 1865 it was apparent that the effort had failed and it needed fixing. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were the attempts of the people who remained in congress to impose a solution. The states of the Confederacy were required to subscribe to them in order to gain readmission to the union.

The 14th amendment has five sections. Only the first one has had much enduring impact on legal and political institutions.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is the final phrase nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws that has become known as the equal protection clause, EPC. This is probably what most people think about when they encounter a reference to the 14th amendment. However, it is a small piece of a document that attempts to clean up many problems. The issues dealing with the immediate aftermath of the war drew a lot more political attention at the time. The amendment as a whole is not centrally focused on what we have come to term civil rights. It contains this little gem in section two.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
An additional act of congress was required in order to actually confer citizenship on the former slaves.

Courts are political institutions. The judges who sit on them are political appointees and they generally are selected in terms of the politics of the president making the appointment. From 1867 to 1954 the federal courts did not pay a lot of attention to the EPC. During the 1880s SCOTUS applied it in a couple of decisions, but in 1896 the decision issued in Plessy v. Ferguson relegated it to the status of being virtually meaningless. They held that racially segregated facilities were constitutional if they were separate but equal. Federal courts continued to pursue this line of judicial reasoning.

In 1954 the Warren court fired the opening shot is what became a judicial revolution with its unanimous decision in Brown v Board of Education. They held that racial segregation per se, regardless of the quality of facilities, was a violation of the EPC. The court continued to apply this basic principle in a number of other cases dealing with a variety of government functions, including legislative apportionment and voting rights. It became a solidly established judicial precedent. It was later extended to cover discrimination on the basis of sex/gender. The present legal debate is over whether it should be applied to the issue of sexual orientation.

For  half a century we had accepted this interpretation of the EPC  and expected it to control court decisions. However, anybody who doubts the assertion that courts are political institutions, need look no further than the infamous case of Bush v Gore. The outcome of the 2000 presidential election became trapped in the land of the hanging chad. The Republican appointees to the US Supreme Court took it upon themselves to decide the outcome and they used the EPC as the spurious rationale for their decision.

The constitution provides little in the way of guidance as to what to do in the event of a disputed election. The 1876 election was such a dispute and it was congress that eventually cobbled together a resolution to the crisis. Since there was no precedent for SCOTUS as the arbiter of elections they had to create some constitutional justification for their intervention.

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7-2 vote, but (as discussed more fully in the next subsection below) two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy for the Equal Protection violation.[28] The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.
According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'") could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
This decision left many legal scholars with their jaws dropping. There was absolutely no precedent for such an interpretation and application of the EPC. The inclusion of this statement in the majority opinion strongly suggest that the decision was a matter of political expediency.
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
This appeared to many critics as an attempt to block use of the decision as a precedent in other cases. There are many other things about this decision to criticize. It was messy and chaotic. All of the justices essentially responded as political actors. The decision is the reason that I think it useful to devote a separate diary to the topic of the EPC. I do not think that we can necessarily assume that SCOTUS can always be relied on to put democratic principles before political considerations. I also do not think that we can assume that the EPC will inevitably be interpreted in the same way  that it has been over the past 50 years ago.

Even without the level of political drama that was created by the 2000 election, there are many issues related to the electoral process that don't necessarily turn on matters derived from the EPC. People are suggesting that the proposals to allocate electoral votes by congressional district could be argued to constitute such a violation. I seriously doubt that such an argument would prevail. The apportionment and configuration of a specific district can be held to account under those terms, but it would be very difficult in relation to such a general change in election law. At any rate the EPC is not going to be an all purpose cross in the mirror that will ward off all Republican electoral schemes.

Originally posted to Richard Lyon on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:14 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  At its core we ae dealing with a reactionary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, Richard Lyon, a2nite, rubyduby7

    court that is changing the meaning of the  laws even as it pretends to be following traditions

    In actuality they are following modern conservative political orthodoxies

    Until theya re called on it, and the courts composition changes, anything is possible regarding the neo-Jim Crow laws and their interpretations of them, especially as far as the 10th A is concerned.

    •  The math demonstrates the act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      instead of every vote in a state counting equally

      Seat Voting means:

      Black Voters votes count less

      Hispanic Voters votes count less

      Asian Voters votes count less

      Working Women Voters votes count less

      Young Voters votes count less

      White Voters votes count more

      White Male Votes Count Most

      in determining a state votes

      That's Racist, Immoral, UnDemocratic, Un-American

      Tired of hearing crazy voices? turn off FOX News. Single Payer: healthcare for all of God's living creatures in America.

      by ca democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:01:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You got some dates wrong. (0+ / 0-)
    In 1957 the Warren court fired the opening shot is what became a judicial revolution with its unanimous decision in Brown v Board of Education.
    IT was 1953. It was originally heard by the Vinsin court, but the CJ fortuitously dropped dead, and Warren, who was promised the first Supreme Court seat available because he had had helped steal 60 Taft delegates at the Republican convention, demanded his due.

    Several earlier court cases relating to Universities were ruled in favor of Blacks in the late 1940s.

    Also, the Hayes/Tilden fiasco was in 1876-77, not 1871.

  •  It should be challenged even created. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe one of the constitutional experts on Kos could provide some guidance. In fact it points out why having the Supremes in dem hands is so important as I reckon that there will be many challenges.

    If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

    by shigeru on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:23:38 AM PST

    •  I meant even if...... (0+ / 0-)

      If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

      by shigeru on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:07:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I certainly agree that it should be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      challenged. I am just trying to point out that there are several reasons why a judicial challenge might not succeed.
      I don't think that winning with a Democratically controlled SCOTUS is a certainty. But, this is a vivid example of why control of the court is so important and the presidential election so critical. Filibuster reform is also a factor in this. Even with a Democratic president, Republicans can block confirmation of his nominees.  

  •  Unintended consequences (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. move ahead with seat voting, I think there could be a very clear challenge to their Congressional district maps on an equal protection claim.  District maps could be held a higher standard if they are used to apportion electoral college votes.

    It would be ironic if the sore loser bills being considered  to try to give the Republican party the presidency caused them to lose the house.

    •  That could be argued (0+ / 0-)

      but there is no assurance that it would prevail.

      •  Still (0+ / 0-)

        I doubt Republicans would be willing to risk their gerrymandered districts just to gain the White House.  I think it would be the challenge to the Virginia law that is most likely to succeed and if it was clear that the proposed change would meet that exact challenge, it could dampen some enthusiasm for the plan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site