Direct Democracy Flashcards
Pac State Telephone v. Oregon (1912)
1902 Oregon amend its constitution adds a vesting clause for people to be able to propose and vote on laws and also reject any acts of legislature at the polls as well. Pac State is trying to get out of paying taxes on business done in the State, is claiming that the whole of Oregon is in violation of Art 1 Sec 4 guarantee of a republican form of gov. The White Majority quotes Luther v. Borden to say that the guarantee clause is out of the realm of justiciability.
Schuette v. BAMN (2014)
Amendment to Mi. constitution, challenged as a violation of the 14th EPC. In 2003 court reviewed two admissions practices for Univ. of Mi., both allowed explicit considerations of race. In 2006 in response to this ruling, Mi. adopted a constitutional amendment that barred affirmative action “any consideration of race by public officials” via ballot measure passed by a margin of 58.
Holding in the instant case has nothing to do with constitutional validity of voters determining race-based preferences should be adopted, only that the court may not disempower voters from choosing what path to follow. By approving this proposal Mi. voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of public discourse
Freedom does not stop with individual rights, must embrace rights of citizens to public discourse
There is no injury inflicted by the State here of invidious racial discrimination
Sotomayor in Schuette
Our precedents do not permit political restructuring that create one process for racial minorities and a separate less burdensome process for everyone else
• All other interest groups have an easier time lobbying admissions process now, race has a massive burden of amending the state constitution
Under this, gov action deprives minority groups EP when
• It has a racial focus that inures primarily to the benefit of the minority
• Alters the political process in a manner that uniquely burdens racial minorities ability to achieve their goals through that process
U.S. Term Limits v. Thompson (1995)
Ark. Constitution is amended to prevent someone from being on the general ballot for the HOR or Senate if they have served 3 terms already. Adopted by voters in the 1992 general election. Stevens holds that such a state-imposed restriction is contrary to the fundamental principle of our representative democracy. • Court decided that Congress couldn’t add to the qualifications in the Const., so states shouldn’t be able to either in Powell v. McCormick. Framer intent was to preserve the egalitarian nature of the election process, and they even rejected a term limit proposal
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106 in 2000 to address the problem of gerrymandering by creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). The Arizona Legislature sued in 2012, arguing that the creation of the AIRC violated the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution.
The Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling, holding that “[r]edistricting is a legislative function to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum, Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 567, and the Governor’s veto, Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 369. While exercise of the initiative was not at issue in this Court’s prior decisions, there is no constitutional barrier to a State’s empowerment of its people by embracing that form of lawmaking.”
The court also noted that in 1911, Congress amended section 2a(c) of Title Two of the United States Code, which provided for federal redistricting if states fail to act. Recognizing “that States had supplemented the representative legislature mode of lawmaking with a direct lawmaking role for the people,” Congress “replaced the reference to redistricting by the state ‘legislature’ with a reference to redistricting of a State ‘in the manner provided by the laws thereof.’
