Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act Discussion

Nature of Claims: Discussion of tensions in adjudicating civil rights claims between two parties with legitimate claims.
- Example: Case involving disparate treatment claims by white firefighters and an Hispanic firefighter regarding results being thrown out.
Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact: The distinction between claims based on intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) versus those based on outcomes regardless of intent (disparate impact).
- Housing Segregation: Affected by existing social, economic, racial, and linguistic patterns contributing to disparate impacts.

Tension is less pronounced in claims related to enfranchisement (the right to vote).
- Broad Claims: Society claims that all eligible individuals should have the opportunity to vote.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA): Major legislation aimed at ensuring equal treatment in voting.
- Framework: Uses a disparate treatment framework acknowledging that the intent of state legislatures does not matter when outcomes differ across protected classes (especially racial groupings).

Prohibitions in Voting Mechanisms:
- Absolute ban on literacy tests.
- Restrictions on polling place conduct to prevent voter harassment.
- Required accessibility for physically disabled individuals at polling places.
Pre-clearance Requirement: Some jurisdictions must seek federal approval (from the Department of Justice) before changing voting laws due to historical civil rights violations.
- Application Process: Such jurisdictions must submit detailed applications (e.g., relocation of polling places).

Coverage Formula in Section Four: Criteria for identifying areas needing pre-clearance.
- Registration Rate: Jurisdictions with voter registration rates below 50% are identified for scrutiny.
- Turnout Rate: Jurisdictions with voting turnout rates below 50% also face pre-clearance.
- Historical Devices: Jurisdictions using prohibited voting devices must undergo federal review.
Subsequent Amendments: Inclusion of linguistic minorities in the protective framework.

Shelby County v. Holder: Supreme Court case where Shelby County contested the VRA's formula, stating it was outdated and based on 1960s data.
- Supreme Court Ruling: The court agreed with Shelby County, effectively nullifying the previous pre-clearance requirements due to outdated metrics.
Current Situation: The lack of a new coverage formula leads to resulting disparities in voter turnout.

Evidence of Success: Significant increases in voter registration and turnout among minority populations post-VRA enactment.
- Statistical Examples: In Alabama (post-1965), non-white registration increased from below 20% to over 50%. Mississippi shows similar trends.
Current Relevance: Conversations on how to develop new data-driven formulae for voting rights protections renew focus on modern disparities.

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties:
- Civil Rights: Demands for equitable treatment and government action for protections of minority rights.
- Civil Liberties: Claims advocating for limited government interference in personal freedoms and autonomous choices.
Case Study: Masterpiece Cakeshop
- Background: Bakery owner Jack Phillips refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs.
- Colorado Law: Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, creating a conflict between civil rights of the couple and Phillips' claimed civil liberties.

Circumstances: Phillips has a devotion to Christian principles; he views the creation of a same-sex wedding cake as participation in a celebration contrary to his beliefs.
Couple's Complaint: Frank Mullins filed a complaint asserting discrimination for being denied service.
- Legal Question: The case presents the question of who has the right to determine the appropriateness of services in a free market vs. ensuring civil rights protections.

Exploration of how to balance civil rights (obligations of businesses to serve equally) against civil liberties (individual freedoms including religious expression).
The ambiguity in legal resolutions in cases of public accommodation vs. private conviction.