Civil rights 2

restrictions on use of property and how property is use

If neighborhood is majority white, a black person cannot buy or rent and vice versa

• Buchanan v. Warley
• in violation of plessy
• no: law does not favor one race over another; instead on equal terms it burdens both races              
• - municipality and local council (state actors) violates the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment “right to acquire, use, and dispose” property

government back insurance mortgages to increase wealth in middle class through home owning

• -policy made it less risky for banks (they would cover if a lender defaulted)
• -permitted buyers to put less money down-if government thought loan was to0 risky to insure, bank would not issue the loan
• -government determined risk based on race, ethnicity and class-Mexicans and black home owner neighborhoods were labeled as red so their property value decreased significantly.
• -1 black family whole neighborhood could turn red-home value would depreciate

agreements that “run with the land”

FHA 1968

Shelley v. Kraemer-Shelley AA buyer bought a home with a restrictive covenant

• Proponent’s Argument- No state action Covenant is a private agreement
• State didn’t craft the contract
• Court reviewed validity of formation
• Court intervention is color-blind

• rejects proponents argument
• covenant excludes a class of persons from purchasing property based on race
• home would be taken based on race
• participation of state/fed courts in enforcement of such covenants is state action
• covenants were not illegal but state court enforcement was illegal

Proponent’s Argument- No state action Covenant is a private agreement State didn’t craft the contract Court reviewed validity of formation Court intervention is color-blind

Prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race or color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability

• Refuse to rent or sell housing
• set different terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling
• misrepresent availability
• refuse to negotiate housing
• provide different housing services or facilities based on protected categories
• outlawed redlining and racial covenants

• A person attempting to buy or rent a dwelling has no comparatives
• Don’t know if their being untrue because of a protected category

• Government testers can create comparisons on multiple cases of possible discriminatory incidents
• Showed continued discrimination over time
• Shoe prima facie case of reace discrimination

• 1 group of testers are members of a racial minority
• Group requested info about availability of a unit type
• Defendant failed or refused to provide truthful info about availability
• White group were provided truthful info

direct attempts to black access to the ballot based on race

• written or oral tests that were intended to ensure that the individual understood info related to voting
• race neutral but implementation was discriminatory

• show proof of paid taxes before voting(with cash)
• most aa were share croppers and didn't have cash upfront

Those who could vote before 1866 or 1867 or their lineal descendants would be exempt from educational, property, or tax voting requirements

political parties bared blacks from participating in primaries(considered private)

Dilution efforts to reduce impact of minority votes

• combined all districts where all voters can vote for all seats of every district regardless of what district hey belong too
• allowed 50% of voters to control 100% of seats 
• resulted in racially and politically homogenous elected bodies

• municipality expands boundaries to include more white votes 
• dilutes the minority vote

redrawing district lines to cut through minority neighborhoods, so the number of minority voting in each district would be reduced to a smaller percentage that ensures the white representatives will be elected.

• Prohibits practices or procedures that denies or abridges the right of a citizen to vote due to race, color, or membership in a language minority group
• permanent

• Provides formula to identify states/political subdivisions in which racial discrimination had been most prevalent- those would be deemed covered jurisdiction
• temporary

Covered jurisdictions are subject to preclearance- any proposed change in voting practices is unenforceable unless DOJ or DC Fed court approves-approval based on if practice violates section Temporary

Whether 2006 congress acted within its authority to renew Sec 4 and Sec 5 for 25 yrs

• Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs
• Formula is based on 40 yr old facts and have no relation to the present day, based on disenfranchisement, not vote dilution
• Registration rates of minorities are above national averages in some covered jurisdiction

• Congress only needs to show a rational to enforce the prohibition of racial discrimination in voting
• Focused on second generation barriers-showed voter dilution efforts by covered jurisdictions in 1990s and 2000s
• DOJ blocked over 700 proposals 50% from covered jurisdictions
• Higher Section 2 violations in covered jurisdictions
• Federal intervention is still a current need

Sections 4 and 5 are no longer justified, Congress overstepped its authority

• Covered Jurisdictions no longer need to seek preclearance
• Reduces the threat of other jurisdiction from becoming covered and therefore increasing laws that dilute racial minority votes.

• does state use literacy test?
• Was voter turnout in 1964 general election lower than 50% of voting age residents?