Voting Rights Act — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The Future of Progressive Originalism: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Interpretation of the Constitution

During her confirmation hearings in March 2022, Justice Jackson introduced herself to Congress as an originalist. [1] Legal originalism is a doctrine of judicial interpretation that follows the Constitution as it was initially intended to be understood at the time it was written. This doctrine is often associated with the Court’s more conservative justices, such as Justices Antonio Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have used it to argue against abortion and gun rights. However, under Justice Jackson’s interpretation, originalism has taken on a new form—one that is lauded for its progressivism.

Kay ZouDecember 27, 2022Voting Rights Act, originalism, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, fourteenth amendment

Shelby County v. Holder: Implications of a Weakened Voting Rights Act

African Americans’ right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment was reaffirmed with the establishment of the far-reaching Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which banned onerous literacy tests and other restrictive measures that were a noticeable facet of the Jim Crow era.[1] In particular, Section 4 of the VRA prevents areas where “less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein” were registered by or voted in the 1964 election from restricting or denying individuals the right to vote.[2] This was done in order to deter “the purpose ... of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.”[3]

Abhishek HariharanSeptember 5, 2018Shelby County v. Holder, Voting Rights Act, voting rights, minority rights, North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, voter ID laws, voter fraud, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Roberts, Fifteenth Amendment Comment