Supreme Court Case Study

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

3. Although it does not state the outcome of the case it does state that the judge ordered trial

The plaintiff Charles Barker, a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee; sued Joe Carr the Secretary of State of Tennessee, along with other public officials. Baker filed that the law of Tennessee Constitution regarding the remapping of districts; was in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection law. Baker complained that legislation had not redrawn districts since being under a 1901 statue; which is in violation because reapportion is to be done every ten years. Baker alleged that TN legislatives are depriving citizens from protection rights, and votes with representation in the General Assembly. Baker argued that due to population change, votes in an urban districts holds less value than those in suburban districts; in debt

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

In response to the judge’s ruling, prison gerrymandering also violates the “one person, one vote” principle as the US census categorizes a prisoner’s residence as their former home before incarnation rather than the location of the prison, therefore politicians have phantom votes in districts and phantom votes of inmates who legally cannot vote. Prison gerrymandering also decreases the actual voting power of the residence who do live in a certain district because when counting the number of prisoners who are manipulated by district drawings to vote in a district where they do not reside, the number jeopardizes the voters who legally vote for change in their district as their vote doesn’t exactly count in proportion. In regard to Jefferson County’s

The state should use citizen voting age population, so there will be less differential in the voters between different districts. For a long period of time, the Supreme Court doesn’t accept the redistricting claims of political question: is the Constitution guarantees that each day job a republican form of government for a long time. It was all left for the Congress and the states to fix the puzzle. However, Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court decided to hear the claims under the equal protection clause and noticed that one-person, one-vote can arise the equal protection clause of the constitution (Oyez, 1). This comes to a conclusion that the Supreme Court should develop some political philosophy, which enforce all states to follow it. However, it turns out that the supreme court has muddled through the definition of one person, one-vote and how state legislators should be working on at this

Procedural History: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted judgment in favor of defendants. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the respondents’ refusal to pay the

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

there are some issues that critics of amending the charter of the City of Detroit do point out. The literature on the representation of women finds precisely the opposite effect for single-member districts. While there are some exceptions, the vast majority of the research has concluded that districts are either meaningless (Alozie and Manganero 1993; Bullock and MacManus 1991) or disadvantageous for women candidates.” Trounstine and Valdini are quoted as saying “. Because women are nearly always between 48% and 52% of a community’s population, we cannot expect that they will be aided by districts. Furthermore, there is little evidence of gender-polarized voting. A number of studies have found that voters evaluate female candidates drawing on gendered stereotypes and that these stereotypes can affect perceptions about candidates and vote choice.” While it can be expected that changing the city charter to elect councilors by district or ward instead of at large may benefit African-American and Latino males, there is no clear evidence to support that these changes will benefit white women and women of color any in advancing their ability to hold elected office in Detroit or hold their councilor any more accountable than

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

Holder case, instead of in an effort for the bill to pass. From The Washington Post in the Supreme Court Case Shelby County v. Holder “The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Section 4 lays out the formulas for how the Justice Department enforces Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires that the states identified with a history of discrimination obtain approval from the federal government before they can make changes to their election law.” With the Supreme Courts ruling states such as "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" are free to redraw districting maps, and make changes to election laws, without the approval of the Federal government, or Justice Department. I believe Congresswoman Jackson Lee introduced the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shelby County v. Holder 2013 court case, due to her quote from The Hill in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shelby County v. Holder court case, where Congresswoman Jackson Lee says “"We cannot afford to sit back and watch our country move backwards — as legislators we must act," Jackson Lee said Wednesday. "[B]ased on the Shelby case and its rationale, it is clear that Voting Rights Act is needed more than ever."” That is why I believe in the title of the legislation H.R.75 – Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, Congresswoman Jackson Lee added the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. wife’s name Coretta Scott King, because the legislation is a response to the Supreme Courts ruling in Shelby County

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,