Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Namudno's Non-Existent Principle of State Equality

17 Pages Posted: 5 Feb 2013 Last revised: 26 Nov 2013

Zachary S. Price

University of California Hastings College of the Law

Date Written: January 31, 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.

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

Suggested Citation

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

Zachary S. Price (Contact Author)

University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )

200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
160
Rank
155,811
Abstract Views
939