Constitutional and election law expert Franita Tolson joins us to talk about a little-known section of one of the most well-known parts of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment grants rights enforceable against states, not just against the federal government. And it gives Congress a role in enforcing those rights. But did you know that it also provides an apparently severe and mandatory remedy for abridgments by states of the right to vote? You will.
This show’s links:
Franita Tolson's faculty profile (http://gould.usc.edu/faculty/?id=73521) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=737594)
Franita Tolson, What is Abridgment?: A Critique of Two Section Twos (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2644320)
Luther v. Borden (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7884047486442944178) (disclaiming power under the Constitution to identify which of two rival factions was the government of Rhode Island); see also Erwin Chemerinsky, Cases Under the Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable (https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1696&context=faculty_scholarship)
Sharrow v. Brown (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13060533703812147352) at footnote 9, for an example of a court wrestling with the seemingly mandatory language of section two's reduction formula
Shelby County v. Holder (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4053797526279899410)
Special Guest: Franita Tolson.