| Description |
1 online resource |
| Contents |
Introduction -- Competing approaches to law and voting minority rights -- Foundations of Black political activism : pushing idealist boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing legislative boundaries -- The Congressional Black Caucus : pushing constitutional boundaries -- The Supreme Court : pushing back -- Reconciling the present with the past |
| Summary |
Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) claim to advocate minority political interests, yet they disagree over the intent and scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as well as the interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Whereas the Court promotes color-blind policies, the CBC advocates race-based remedies. Setting this debate in the context of the history of black political thought, Rivers examines a series of high-profile districting cases, from Rodgers v. Lodge (1982) through NAMUDNO v. Holder (2009). She evaluates the competing approaches to racial equality and concludes, surprisingly, that an originalist, race-conscious interpretation of the 14th Amendment, along with a revised states' rights position regarding electoral districting, may better serve minority political interests |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references (pages 191-202) and index |
| Notes |
Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher |
| Subject |
Congressional Black Caucus.
|
|
United States. Supreme Court.
|
| SUBJECT |
United States. Supreme Court fast |
|
Congressional Black Caucus fast |
| Subject |
African Americans -- Suffrage.
|
|
POLITICAL SCIENCE -- Political Process -- Elections.
|
|
POLITICAL SCIENCE -- American Government -- Legislative Branch.
|
|
African Americans -- Suffrage
|
|
Minorities -- Suffrage
|
|
United States
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| LC no. |
2020707375 |
| ISBN |
9780472028214 |
|
0472028219 |
|
