Namudno's Non-Existent Principle of State Equality
Zachary S. Price
University of California Hastings College of the Law
January 31, 2013
New York University Law Review, Vol. 87, 2013
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
Date posted: February 5, 2013 ; Last revised: November 26, 2013
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 1.203 seconds