How the Supreme Court Advanced Federalism While Speaking to Race’s Role in Electoral Districting: Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009)

Authors

Jonathan D. Gardner, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

This Note will explore how Bartlett affects race and federalism in districting decisions. Specifically, it will argue that while the Court did not remove race from the redistricting process, it did address intentional racial discrimination in that process, and it did so in a way that increased state independence from the federal government. Part II of this Note provides a background discussion of vote dilution claims and shows how previous Supreme Court precedent left an important question unanswered. Part II then provides a summary of how the Supreme Court answered that question in Bartlett v. Strickland. Part III analyzes the Bartlett decision and explains why, while the Court did not remove race from the districting process, it did attempt to address intentional discrimination in the districting process. Part III also shows how the decision advanced federalism by granting the states greater freedom from congressional control.

Recommended Citation

Jonathan D. Gardner, How the Supreme Court Advanced Federalism While Speaking to Race’s Role in Electoral Districting: Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009), 89 Neb. L. Rev. (2010)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol89/iss1/4