Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2211722
 


 



Namudno's Non-Existent Principle of State Equality


Zachary Price


University of California Hastings College of the Law

January 31, 2013

New York University Law Review, Vol. 87, 2013

Abstract:     
In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (NAMUDNO), the Supreme Court suggested in dicta that federal legislation that treats states unequally may be constitutionally suspect. This suggestion is wrong. It should be put to rest in the Court's pending case, Shelby County v. Holder, addressing the constitutionality of section five of the Voting Rights Act. The idea that federal legislation must treat states equally lacks support in constitutional text, history, or precedent, and it is particularly unfounded with respect to legislation, like section five of the VRA, that is based on Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment authority to enforce that Amendment’s prohibition on discriminatory denials of the right to vote.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 17

Keywords: Shelby County, NAMUDNO, Voting Rights Act, Fifteenth Amendment, Equal Footing

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 5, 2013 ; Last revised: November 26, 2013

Suggested Citation

Price, Zachary, Namudno's Non-Existent Principle of State Equality (January 31, 2013). New York University Law Review, Vol. 87, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2211722

Contact Information

Zachary Price (Contact Author)
University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 595
Downloads: 112
Download Rank: 139,635

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.578 seconds