psc 141 test 2

Fourteen Amendment

Reversed Dred Scott by guaranteeing citizenship rights to newly freed slaves. It applied the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" (no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US), the "Equal Protection Clause" (nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws), and the "Due Process Clause" (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) to the states.

Fifteen Amendment

Right to vote guaranteed for African-American men.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971)

- gave eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-year-olds the right to vote

General Elections

A general election is a statewide election to fill national and state offices. Examples of offices filled are the president, federal senators and representatives, governors, state senators and representatives, judges, members of the plural executive, etc. They are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. Years when presidents are elected (2012, 2016, 2020, ...) are called "presidential" elections; elections held between presidential elections (2014, 2018, 2022, ...), are called "mid-term" elections. The latter are so called because they are held mid-way (two years) through a president's four-year term in office. In Texas, governors are elected in mid-term elections. State law allows either split-ticket voting or straight-ticket voting. Split-ticket voting refers to voters casting their ballots for candidates of two or more political parties for different offices during the same election. For example, you could vote for a Democrat for president but, if you liked your state senator who was a Republican, you could vote Republican in that race. Straight-ticket voting refers to voters casting their ballots for the candidates of only one party. Most voters chose this option because it is easy - one vote marks your selection of everyone running in that party. You can straight-ticket vote and then select any candidates from the other party that you like. For example, you may be a Republican but know and like a Democrat running for one office. In this situation, you could vote straight-ticket for Republicans and then vote Democrat in the race, and/or races, where you prefer the Democrat candidates - all unmarked races would count as a Republican vote. Unlike primary races, the general election is won by the candidate with the most votes (plurality); there is no runoff election. For example, if there were three candidates running for governor and none of them received more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the most votes would win the election.

The Marshall Court (1801-1835):

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) - The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1818) - The "Contract Clause" does apply to the states.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

All qualifications for voting except citizenship, age, residency, and criminal record had to be eliminated. Use of literacy tests or similar devices was suspended for five years. If local officials continued to discriminate against blacks, federal officials could be sent in to register blacks. To insure that black voters could safely go to the polls and have their vote counted, federal poll watchers could be sent into the county. To prevent the target states and counties from making electoral changes that might adversely affect black voters, any changes in voting laws or practices had to be cleared by the Attorney General or the Federal District Court of Washington D.C.

CAMPUS SPEECH CODES & FREE SPEECH

American college campuses have become an important battleground in the continuing struggle over the meaning of free speech. Campus speech codes have been instituted at many colleges and universities in an effort to prohibit speech that may offend members of minority groups. Below are examples of actual campus speech codes from various universities. As you read these, consider whether you believe these speech codes violate civil liberties. During a class at the University of Michigan, a student argued that homosexuality could be treated with psychotherapy. He was accused of violating a campus rule against victimizing people on the basis of their sexual orientation. At Southern Methodist University, a student was sentenced to work for 30 hours with minority organizations because he sang "We Shall Overcome" in a sarcastic manner. According to the University of Montana's harassment policy, if a woman "feels" she has been mistreated, that alone proves mistreatment. At San Diego State University a student was admonished by school administrators and warned that he might be expelled for getting into a heated argument with four Arab students he encountered in the school's library who had been quietly celebrating the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. In 2002, a student at California Poly posted fliers for a talk by black conservative C. Mason Weaver, who believes that government assistance programs keep African Americans locked in dependence and poverty. The student was accused by several other students of racial insensitivity, brought before a campus discipline board, and found guilty of "disruption" for posting the lecture announcement. So, what do you think? Do these speech codes go too far, or are they necessary to insure that some members of society aren't offended by others? I'm going to let y'all in on a little secret here - there is no constitutional protection against being offended! In fact, the First Amendment protects my right (free speech) to offend anyone, any time I please. Because of this, many civil libertarians have fought against such codes, favoring the concept of free speech in a free society. Fortunately, the courts have generally sided with the civil libertarians on this issue

Free Press Versus Fair Trial

An interesting question arises when two constitutional rights conflict. For example, the press has a First Amendment right to report, but accused persons have a Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. If reporting trial proceedings could affect an accused person's ability to receive a fair trial, which constitutional right should be protected? In this situation, the courts have generally sided with the rights of the accused. That's why judges can issue "gag orders" - an order issued by a judge restricting the publication of news about a trial in progress or a pretrial hearing in order to protect the accused's right to a fair trial. The reason courts have sided with the rights of the accused is because their liberty (freedom) is at risk and this is more important than the right to report.

Downs' Economic Theory of Voting

Anthony Downs was an economist who, in the 1950s, developed a cost/benefit theory of voting. Political scientists, who were using behavior to explain voting, were surprised by Downs' theory because it removed explanatory factors like education, race, income, sex, etc. from the equation. It should be noted that political scientists weren't wrong about the impact of demographics, but Downs' simple cost/ benefit theory was/is an important component in explaining why people vote. In its basic form, Downs' economic theory of voting can be represented by the following equation: R = B - C, where R represents a rational vote, B represents benefits, and C represents costs. If benefits outweigh the costs of voting, the individual makes a rational decision to vote. If costs outweigh benefits, the individual makes a rational decision to not vote. It's important to note that R represents a "rational vote decision." Rational decisions are based on information. So, what are the "costs" and "benefits" of voting? Benefits are fairly obvious - policy that you want passed or the simple joy one receives from voting for the candidate they support. Costs can be tangible, like the cost of gas used to drive to the polls, but, by far, the biggest cost of rational voting is the cost of becoming informed - knowing what the candidates stand for, the policies they will pursue, the likelyhood that these policies will be implemented, etc. Because the costs of becoming an informed voter can be great, voters use decisions shortcuts (heuristics) to cut down on the costs associated with making rational decisions. A "heuristic" is an intellectual shortcut. By far, the number one heuristic used in voting is party identification (party ID). As long as voters have a basic understanding of where the parties stand on issues (Democrats are pro-choice, Republicans are pro-life) that are important to them, using party ID as a voting shortcut works. But, not all Democrats are pro-choice and not all Republicans are pro-life. So using party ID as a voting heuristic isn't 100 percent accurate. Therefore, to be an informed and rational voter, you should take the time to learn about candidates and what they stand for!

Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action

Arguments for: important remedy for lingering disadvantages from past discrimination; tolerance and a sense of community requires diverse educational, workplace, and government institutions; provides important role models for disadvantaged groups.

Causes of Low Turnout

As discussed earlier, we do, when compared to other democratic countries, have low voter turnout in mid-term and presidential elections. Research has identified a number of factors that may contribute to low voter turnout. Five of the more popular reasons are: In our "winner take all" system of voting (the candidate with the most, not the majority, vote wins), voters can feel like their vote is wasted. For example, Texas is a Republican state and Democrats know they have no chance of their presidential candidate winning here. So why vote? Well, if your Democrat vote in Texas affected the proportional makeup of the House, you might be more likely to vote. The same concept applies to third-party candidates. They may never get enough votes to win a district but, cumulative, proportional votes could win them seats in the House.

EVOLUTION of CIVIL LIBERTIES

As with just about everything else we've discussed, civil liberties have evolved throughout the last two hundred plus years. Economic Liberty in the Early Republic - One of the few protections of liberty in the original Constitution concerned private property. The "Contract Clause" prohibited states from impairing the obligation of contracts. This provision was designed to prevent states from passing bills relieving individuals of their obligation to pay debts. In other words, you couldn't escape paying a debt by moving from one state to another - the debt followed you. In addition to protections outlined in the Constitution, the importance of property rights has been reinforced by more than a century of judicial interpretation. Below are decisions made by different Supreme Courts regarding property rights. Note: when I refer to a Court by a person's name (Marshall, Taney, etc.) this indicates who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time. Also, the Court cases (Fletcher v. Peck, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, etc.) are linked to web sites that explain the cases in further detail. You should click on these links and read the case details.

CIVIL LIBERTIES and the WAR on TERRORISM:

As with past American wars, the war on terrorism has generated significant restrictions on civil liberties. Both liberal groups and conservative libertarians are concerned with the erosion of civil liberties associated with the War on Terrorism. The USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, is responsible for many restrictions on civil liberties. For example, wire-tapping, electronic surveillance, monitoring bank accounts and emails of suspected terrorists, stricter boarders, and detaining non-citizens living in U.S. thought to be threats to national security; presidential executive orders; the use of military tribunals to try non-citizens; and secret detentions, interrogations, and deportations. The courts have invalidated some of these actions.

The Taney Court (1836-1864):

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) - Favored property used in ways that encouraged economic growth over simple enjoyment of property. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - Slaves were not citizens who possessed rights but simply private property belonging to their owners, no different from land or tools.

CIVIL RIGHTS:

Civil Rights are government guarantees of political equality and equal treatment. Where civil liberties are areas where the government should not intrude, civil rights are government interventions to make sure that individuals have access to their civil liberties.

CIVIL LIBERTIES in the CONSTITUTION

Civil liberties are constitutional provisions, laws, and practices that protect individuals from governmental interference. The framers of the Constitution were particularly concerned with establishing a society in which liberty (or freedom) was paramount. As embodied in the Bill of Rights, civil liberties are prohibitions against government actions that threaten freedom, such as freedom of speech and religion. Constitutional Liberties - The original Constitution specifically protected only a few liberties from the national government and almost none from state governments. The safeguard against tyranny that the Framers preferred was to give the national government little power with which to attack individual liberties. That said, the Framers singled out a few crucial freedoms: Prohibition against suspending the writ of habeas corpus except when public safety demanded it due to rebellion or invasion; This means that someone cannot be held in jail or prison without cause. Prohibition against passing bills of attainder; This means that someone cannot be sentenced to death without a trial. Prohibition against passing ex post facto laws. This means that someone cannot be charged with a crime if what the did was legal at the time and later became illegal. Objections by the Anti-Federalists to the absence of a more specific listing led James Madison to promise that a bill of rights would be proposed as a condition for ratifying the Constitution.

BROADENING CIVIL RIGHTS:

Civil rights apply to more than just women and minorities. Age, disability, and sexual orientation are, to varying degrees, protected classes as well.

Gays & Lesbians

Civil rights issues pertaining to sexual preference begin to take shape after the "Stonewall Riots" of 1969. Even so, civil rights for gays and lesbians have been slow to materialize. For example, 36 states and Washington, D.C. currently recognize gay marriage. The Supreme Court has been slow to recognize gay rights as well: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) - Upheld Georgia's ban against homosexual relations. That said, recent Supreme Court decisions are trending towards more civil rights for gays and lesbians: Romer v. Evans (1996) - Laws denying basic civil rights to gays and lesbians are unconstitutional. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) - Anti-sodomy laws designed to make homosexual relations illegal are unconstitutional. United States v. Windsor (2012) - The Defense of Marriage Act (2006), which defines marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman," deprives same-sex couples who are legally married under state law of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

Restrictions on the Press

Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation and is not protected. To constitute defamation, a claim must be generally false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Actual malice takes defamation one step further. Actual malice in libel cases generally consists of intentionally publishing any written or printed statement that is injurious to the character of another with either knowledge of the statement's falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. Even with defamation and actual malice, newspapers are protected against trivial or incidental errors when they are reporting on public persons. This is because public persons have forfeited some aspects of privacy by virtue of their public status.

Campaign Involvement

Despite low voter turnout levels, Americans are more likely than people in other countries to participate actively in campaigns. Areas of involvement are: Contact officials - This includes writing letters, calling, and/or emailing elected officials. Give money - This includes giving money to individual candidates, the political parties, and/or Political Action Committees (PACs). Attend meetings - This includes "Town Hall" meetings put on by elected officials, meetings sponsored by political parties, etc. Attend political rallies - This includes rallies sponsored by political parties, ideological movements (like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street), interest groups (like pro-life or anti-gun groups), and/or labor unions. Work/volunteer actively in a campaign organization - This includes working/volunteering for an individual candidate, a political party, and/or a political interest group.

Origins of Affirmative Action

Despite new legislation and changed public attitudes as a result of the Civil Rights movement, the economic and social situations of African Americans were little improved. Prominent figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), became convinced that a broader societal effort was needed to eradicate poverty. After MLK's assassination, many began to support the idea that racial progress required racial preferences for hiring, contracts, and college admissions. Interestingly, President Richard Nixon took the most important step in this direction with the "Philadelphia Plan." This plan favored African-American owned businesses when awarding government contracts for construction and services. I say "interestingly" because Nixon was a Republican and Republicans are not generally viewed as sympathetic to the plight of minorities.

Civil War Amendments

During the course of the Civil War, the US Congress passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which became known as the Civil War Amendments.

Imperfect Electoral Democracy:

Each of these three processes of democratic control works to some extent but none of them works well enough to guarantee perfectly democratic outcomes. That said, taken together, they do explain how people in America vote.

The Electoral College

Each state is assigned electoral votes that equal its number of representatives in the House and its number of senators in the Senate. Of course all states have two senators but the number of representatives varies depending on the states' population. The most populated state, California, has 55 electoral votes; Texas is second with 38. This means that California has 53 representatives and Texas has 36. Six states, with only one representative, have three electoral votes. Since there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, you might think there are 535 electoral votes. You'd be wrong. Washington DC gets three votes - the equivalent of two senators and one representative. So there are 538 electoral votes. To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. In the event of a tie or someone failing to secure 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects who will be president. When voting for president, American voters are actually voting for a slate of electors who have promised to support the candidate. Surprisingly, they are not obligated to vote for the candidate the voters of their state selected. In 2000, when Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, a Democratic strategist named Bob Beckel actually contacted several electoral voters and lobbied them to change their vote to Gore. Obviously, it didn't work. Even though electors are not obligated to vote for the state's winning candidate, they are party loyalists who rarely change their vote. Almost all states now have winner-take-all systems, meaning the candidate with the most votes gets all of the state's electoral votes. For example, if there are three candidates running for president (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) and the Republican gets 45% of the vote in Texas, the Democrat gets 40%, and the Independent gets 15%, the Republican would get all 38 electoral votes in Texas. Maine & Nebraska are the only states that award elector votes based on proportional vote. Instead of winner-take-all, each candidate can be awarded elector votes base on the percentage of vote they received in the state. For ease of explanation, pretend Maine has ten representatives - this would give Maine 12 electoral votes (ten for their representatives and two for their senators). As an example, let's say that Clinton got 60% of the Maine vote and Trump got 40%. In this situation, Clinton would get eight of Maine's 12 elector votes and Trump would get four. This is because the Representative based elector votes (ten in our fictional example) are awarded based on proportion of vote, while the two Senate based elector votes go to the candidate with the most votes in the state. A lot of people like this system, me included, because it would help eliminate the "wasted vote" mindset we discussed earlier. After the 2000 election, where Bush won the EC vote but lost the popular vote, some political scientists reran every presidential election in US history and awarded the elector votes based on the Maine and Nebraska proportional system. It changed one presidential election. Not Bush/Gore, as most folks would think. It changed the 1960 election - Nixon would have beat Kennedy. Of course this is an academic exercise. If all EC votes were awarded proportionally, it would change the way candidates campaign, which would factor into final vote counts. As mentioned earlier, the "college" of electors from the different states never meets; instead the winning slates are sent to DC.

Voting & Elections

Elections are essential for democratic politics. This is because elections are the principal means by which popular sovereignty and majority rule are supposed to work. Elections are also the primary means by which elected officials are held accountable. Meaning - if elected officials are doing a good job, the people will reward them by reelecting them; if elected officials are not doing a good job, the people will punish them by electing someone else. We'll talk more about this theory later.

Affirmative Action & The Supreme Court

For most of the last decade, the Supreme Court has moved toward the position that government laws and actions that are not colorblind should be subject to strict scrutiny. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986) - Layoffs stemmed from race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. Richmond v. Croson Co. (1989) - "Generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify racial quotas for awarding public contracts. Adarand Construction v. Peña (1995) - All racial classifications must pass strict scrutiny review. Miller v. Johnson (1995) - Racial gerrymandering (reapportionment) of congressional districts violates the Equal Protection Clause. The University of Michigan cases (2003) signaled an apparent shift from earlier decisions. The Court ruled that the consideration of race does not automatically trigger "strict scrutiny." Stated that achieving diversity in universities is a compelling reason for not applying strict scrutiny.

FREEDOM of SPEECH

Freedom of speech was very important to the framers, which is why it is specified in the First Amendment. Today there are people who would like to curtail free speech in the name of "political correctness." The college speech codes discussed previously are examples of political correctness. The thought behind political correctness is that people should be protected from being offended by the speech of others. I'm going to say something that I want all of you understand - There is NO constitutional protection from being offended! In fact, the First Amendment gives all of us the right to offend anyone anytime we want. I'm not encouraging y'all to make a habit of purposefully offending people but y'all need to understand there is no protection from being offended. Like most other rights, free speech has evolved over the years. Also, there is a difference in vocal speech (saying something) and symbolic speech (wearing armbands or picketing), which may receive less protection from the Supreme Court. Below are some linked cases that illustrate these concepts.

Capital Punishment:

Furman v. Georgia (1972) - Court found that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. Georgia (1976) - Court found that the death penalty was not inherently cruel or unusual. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) - Court ignored statistical evidence that blacks who kill whites a four times more likely to be sentenced to death than are whites who kill blacks. Atkins v. Virginia (2002 - Banned the use of the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants. Ring v. Arizona (2002) - Overruled the death sentences of more than 160 convicted killers, declaring that only juries, and not judges, can decide on the use of the death penalty for those convicted of capital crimes.

Standards of Incorporation

How does the Supreme Court decide whether to incorporate some portion of the Bill of Rights? The answer is spelled out in footnote four of the Court's opinion in US v. Carolene Products Company (1838). State actions bring strict scrutiny if they: Contradict constitutional prohibitions; Restrict the democratic process; Discriminate against minorities.

Theories of Democratic Two-Party Control of Government

I'm going to present three theories of voting. Keep in mind that no one of these theories fully explains voting and that aspects of all three are present in our voting system. Also, as you read through these theories, keep Downs' theory in mind by considering the costs associated with each theory.

Ending Government-Sponsored Separation & Discrimination

In 1944, the Supreme Court declared that race was a suspect classification that demanded strict scrutiny. This means that any laws dealing with race are assumed unconstitutional. It is then up to the government to argue that the law is constitutional. This is a difficult position to argue. Because race triggers strict scrutiny, many laws designed to hurt minorities have been found unconstitutional. But this became a double-edged sword because laws designed to help minorities are race-based and trigger strict scrutiny as well. Therefore, many laws designed to help minorities have been found unconstitutional too.

Sexual Harassment

In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that making sexual activity a condition of employment or promotion violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) - So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived as hostile or abusive, there is no need for it to be "psychological injurious." In other words, workers did not have to prove that offensive actions made them unable to do their jobs or caused them psychological harm, only that the work environment was hostile or abusive.

An Initial Absence of Civil Rights

In the South, African Americans lived in slavery, with no rights at all. In many places outside the South, African Americans were treated in a demeaning and inferior manner. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) the Supreme Court ruled that a black man, slave or free, was chattel and "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." During this time no state allowed women to vote, few allowed them to sit on juries, and some even denied them the right to own property or enter into contracts. Despite intimidation, many African Americans and women took an active role in fighting for their civil rights.

content conclusion

In this module, we continued the discussion on civil liberties and expanded it to include religion (free exercise and establishment), privacy, and rights of the accused. You learned how the free exercise of religion has evolved in public education. You learned how privacy has been applied to abortion rights. And you learned how civil liberties protect the rights of individuals who have been accused of a crime. In this module, you were also introduced to the concept of civil rights - loosely defined as government guarantees of political equality and equal treatment. You learned about the history of how some groups of people have been denied civil rights (right to vote, protection from discrimination, etc.). You learned how African-Americans were denied the right to vote long after the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted and the steps taken by the government to ensure their right to vote. And you learned about Jim Crow laws that were used to systematically discriminate against African-Americans in just about every aspect of life.

content conclusion

In this module, we continued the discussion on civil rights - loosely defined as government guarantees of political equality and equal treatment. You learned about the historic struggle that African-Americans faced to gain equal access to education. You learned how important Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) were to obtaining desegregated schools. You learned the difference in strict and intermediate scrutiny and how suspect classification affects Supreme Court decisions. You also learned about civil rights pertaining to access to birth control abortion, and workplace equality. Finally, you learned about the "new" civil rights issue pertaining to gays and lesbians.

Content Conclusion

In this module, we discussed several theories of voting and how voters vote - the decisions and costs of voting. We also compared the US electoral system with electoral systems in other democracies. We discussed the role of money in our elections and how franchise expansion has impacted elections. In addition, we discussed low voter turnout and possible explanations for it. Finally, we discussed the imcumbency factor and campaigning. At this point, y'all should have a much better understanding of the who, what, why, when, and where of voting. Hopefully, y'all will put this knowledge to work in future elections!

Introduction

In this module, we will discuss elections in Texas. On this level we're talking about elections for governor, lieutenant governor, and other members of the plural executive, members of the Texas Legislator (representatives for the House and senators for the Senate), and various other elected positions (local municipal elections, etc.). We will also discuss types of elections held in Texas - general elections, primary elections, local elections, special elections, and non-candidate elections. The Texas Constitution stipulates that general elections be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November on even numbered years. This is the same day that national elections are held but, importantly, we elect our executives in presidential mid-term years. So, if presidents are elected in 2012, 2016, etc., governors in Texas are elected in 2014, 2018, etc. There is a reason for this difference that will be discussed. We will also discuss district and at-large elections. When y'all complete this module, y'all will have a much better understanding of the Texas electoral system. As with national elections, Texas elections are the most direct way of holding elected officials accountable for their actions. As you learned earlier in the semester, Texans are big on accountability!

intro

In this module, we'll be discussing US elections. At this level we're talking about electing the president and members of Congress - representatives in the House of Representatives and senators in the Senate. We will also be discussing methods of elections - direct elections for representatives and senators and the Electoral College for the president. The Constitution stipulates the terms for each (two years for members of the House, six years for members of the Senate, and four years for the president), term limits (none for senators and representatives and two for the president), and when national elections are held (on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November on even numbered years). We will also be discussing methods of election, turnout, who votes, and the franchise. Elections are the most direct way that we have to hold elected officials accountable. When they do a good job, we can reward them by reelecting them. When they don't do a good job, we can punish them by electing someone else. Voting is a privilege that should be taken seriously. Hopefully, y'all will appreciate this more after completing this module and exercise your right to vote.

Introduction

In this module, we'll conclude our discussion on civil rights. Remember that civil rights are defined as personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing his or status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community. In other words, civil rights are government guarantees of political equality and equal treatment. This is necessary because some groups (minorites and women) have been denied political equality and equal treatment.

intro

In this module, we'll continue our discussion on civil liberties and begin discussing civil rights. Remember that civil liberties are defined as the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government. Our civil liberties are specified in the Bill of Rights and include things like free speech, religious freedom, etc. Civil rights are defined as personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing his or status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community. You might be thinking that this doesn't sound very different than civil liberties. If you are thinking this, you are correct. The main difference is that the government is not supposed to interfere with your civil liberties, but government actively gets involved in guaranteeing civil rights. In other words, civil rights is the government making sure that people can pursue their civil liberties. This is because certain groups (African-Americans, women, gays, etc.) have been systematically denied access to their civil liberties.

content conclusion

In this module, you learned about the evolution of civil liberties; specifically how economic, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press liberties have changed over the years. Where these rights are concerned, you learned that they are not absolute. For example, speech can be restricted if it poses a clear and present danger. The press cannot engage in defamation or act with actual malice. You also learned about incorporation and standards of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Incorporation refers to the process by which the Supreme Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

Civil Liberties intro

Introduction Civil liberties are defined as the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government. These rights are guaranteed by the laws of a country. In the United States, our civil liberties are specified in the Bill of Rights. These rights include free speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, religious freedom, and many rights afforded to persons accused of a crime (fair trial, jury trial, restrictions on self-incrimination, double jeopardy, etc.), to name a few. These rights are not absolute though. As you will learn, under certain circumstances, the government can curtail these rights.

Consequences of the Electoral College System

It magnifies the popular support of the winner. For example, in 1992 Clinton won 370 EC votes, 100 more than needed to win. But, because there was a third-party candidate in the election (Ross Perot), Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote. So, 57% of Americans voted against Clinton, but he enjoyed an electoral landslide election. Also, it may let less popular candidates win, as happened in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. Finally, it discourages third parties. Because 48 of the 50 states are winner-take-all when it comes to awarding EC votes, it is difficult for third-party candidates to win a single EC vote. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote but, because he didn't get the most votes in any state, he received zero EC votes.

Nationalization of the Bill of Rights

Liberties unrelated to property were not protected very much before the 20th century because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. The Supreme Court only gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states through selective incorporation - the process by which the Bill of Rights are applied to the states. The Supreme Court was slow to nationalize or incorporate the Bill of Rights.

FREEDOM of the PRESS

Like freedom of speech, freedom of the press is not universal - meaning there are restrictions. Near v. Minnesota (1925) - The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint - the government's power to prevent publication, as opposed to punishment afterward - was unconstitutional. Prohibition of prior restraint on publication remains the core of freedom of the press. New York Times v. United States (1971) - This is also referred to as the "Pentagon Papers Case." The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing materials regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. Here again, the Court ruled against prior restraint.

Massive Resistance to Racial Integration in the South

Little was accomplished until the president and Congress backed up the justices with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Unreasonable Search & Seizure:

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - The "Exclusionary Rule" prevents police and prosecutors from using evidence against a defendant that was obtained in an illegal search. Murray v. United States (1988) - Allowed prosecutors to use products of illegal searches if other evidence unrelated to the illegal evidence would have justified a search warrant. Minnesota v. Carter (1998) - An officer acting on a drug tip could peer through the gap in Venetian blinds to observe illegal activity without violating the Fourth Amendment. Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) - Police who have probable cause to search an automobile for illegal substances may also search personal possessions of passengers in the car. Kyllo v. United States (2001) - Police could not use high-technology thermal devices to search through the walls of a house to check for the presences of high-intensity lights used for growing marijuana

Self-Incrimination:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - This is the case that established the "Miranda Warning" that anyone who has ever watched an episode of Law and Order is familiar with - "You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?" These rights were upheld in principle by Burger and Rehnquist Courts, despite the granting of exceptions.

Affirmative Action & Public Opinion

Most Americans support the diversity goals of affirmative action. But most also oppose racial preferences in hiring, contracts, and college admission. Some argue that opposition to affirmative action demonstrates the continued existence of racism. However, recent research shows that opposition mainly results from concerns about treating people as members of groups rather than as individuals.

Civil Rights Before the 20th Century

Not surprisingly, given America's history with women and minorities, there was an initial absence of civil rights. In fact, the word equality does not appear in the Constitution. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Americans seemed more interested in protecting individuals against government than in guaranteeing political rights through government.

Current Status of Affirmative Action

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has gotten involved in the Affirmative Action debate. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) the Court prohibited the use of racial quotas by university admissions committees but later permitted the use of race as a factor in hiring or admissions. More recently, the Court has said that programs that narrowly redress specific violations will be upheld but that broader affirmative action programs that address societal racism will not.

American Elections in Comparative Perspective

Often, Americans are ridiculed by people in other countries because we have relatively low voter turnout compared with other countries - usually between 50% and 60% in presidential elections. It is true that our turnout is low compared to most other democratic countries but there are some legitimate reasons. One explanation is called "voter fatigue." In other words, the US has more elections than any other democratic nation. This is true. Because of our federalist system, and separate elections for the House, Senate, and president, we vote in more elections than other democratic nations. For example, in the United Kingdom, voters elect members to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons selects the Prime Minister. In the US, we elect members to the House of Representatives every two years, senators every six years, and a president every four years. But, because of federalism, we are also electing governors and members of the legislature on the state level; mayors and city council members on the local level; sheriffs on the county level; etc. When all the elections Americans do participate in are considered, we actually vote more than our counterparts in other democratic nations

Direct Partisan Elections

Old indirect methods of electing officials have been replaced by more direct methods. For example, prior to the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified in 1913), senators were selected by state legislatures. Now they are elected by the citizens of the state. We still don't have direct elections of presidents. Instead, voters in a state vote for a "slate" of electors who make up the Electoral College. For example, if in 2016 there is a Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian on the presidential ballot in Texas, there will be a Democrat slate, Republican slate, and Libertarian slate of electors. The slate that represents Texas in the Electoral College count will represent the candidate who receives the most, not the majority, of votes. Even with the Electoral College, the election of the president has become more directly democratic. This is because of the primary process. In the old "party boss" days, candidates were selected by influential members of the political parties, not the people. With primary elections, voters directly choose candidates for election.

Suppression of Free Speech

One major exception to the expansion of freedom of expression is periodic concern about "internal security." The "Bad-Tendency Rule" states that speech and other First Amendment freedoms may be curtailed if there is a possibility that such expression might lead to some "evil." Of course "evil" is not easily defined.

Thirteen Amendment

Outlawed slavery.

Electoral Competition (Median Voter) Voting Model Theory

Parties seeking votes move toward the median voter or the center of the political spectrum. This theory actually has two parts - the primary election and the general election. In the primary election (elections within the party to choose which candidate will run in the general election) candidates try to secure support from their party base. For Democrats this means very liberal voters and for Republicans this means very conservative voters. Once a candidate has secured their party's nomination, they have to move back towards the median, or middle, voter. This is because most people are moderate or have cross-over beliefs (for example, a voter could be pro-choice, which is a Democrat position, and pro-gun, which is a Republican position), while the party base voters are ideologues. The trick for the candidate is to run just far enough to the middle to attract moderate support without running so far to the middle that they lose their base support.

Separate but Equal Overturned

Plessy v. Ferguson (1895) was the Supreme Court case that established the doctrine of "separate but equal." This meant that segregation based on race was legal. Having "black only" schools, restrooms, water fountains, or making blacks sit in the back of the bus, in the theater balcony, and in designated restaurant areas was legal. Two pivotal Supreme Court cases paved the way for desegregation: Smith v. Allwright (1944) - Cannot exclude non-whites from political party primaries. Remember from a previous lecture that southern states used "white primaries" to keep African-Americans from participating in primary elections. This case outlawed that practice. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Overturned the Plessy case and found separate but equal unconstitutional. This ruling led to the desegregation of schools.

Political Participation

Political participation refers to political activity by individual citizens. Political participation is more than just voting. Political participation can be broken into two basic categories - unconventional and conventional participation. Unconventional participation includes activities such as demonstrations and boycotts. Historically, unconventional participation was reserved for people who were denied access to conventional means of participation. Consider the civil rights movement of southern blacks. They held demonstrations and boycotts to bring about political change because they were being denied the right to vote. Conventional participation, on the other hand, includes activities such as voting, writing letters, contacting officials, giving money, etc. When all forms of participation are taken into account, US citizens are every bit as politically active as other democratic nations.

Women & the 15th Amendment

Politically active women were stung by their exclusion from the Fifteenth Amendment's extension of the right to vote. In Minor v. Happersett (1847) the Supreme Court ruled that women's suffrage is not included in the citizenship guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. In response, the women's suffrage movement focused on more direct political agitation. This movement finally led to ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920

The Right to Counsel:

Powell v. Alabama (1932) - Court ruled that legal counsel must be supplied to all indigent defendants accused of a capital crime. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Court ruled that defendants accused of any felony in state jurisdictions are entitled to a lawyer and that states must supply a lawyer when a defendant cannot afford to do so.

Money & Elections

Presidential campaigns cost enormous amounts of money. In the 2012 presidential election between Obama and Romney, the two candidates raised and spent over $1.193 billion - that was the most expensive presidential election in history! When parties and PACs are included in the mix, over $2 billion was raised and spent in the 2012 presidental election. Not surprisingly, the cost has increased rapidly over time. This can be attributed to the costs of buying television ads and travel.Where does the money come from? Until the last election, government subsidies, in the form of matching funds, contributed to the costs. Obama refused matching funds in 2008 and both presidential candidates refused matching funds in 2012. Candidates can use their own money, without limits, if they wish. Political parties, interest groups, labor unions, corporations, and individuals all contribute money as well. Most contributions come from individuals like you and me. This could be as little as ten dollars or the maximum amount allowed for individuals of $2,600 per election (primary and general)

Getting Started:

Presidential candidates must campaign in the various primaries and caucuses throughout the nation. The first primary is held in New Hampshire, while the first caucus is held in Iowa. Primaries, like we have in Texas, are much like regular voting where you select the candidate you prefer from among all the candidates running in one of the two parties on a ballot. Most states have primaries. Caucuses are more interactive. In a caucus, individuals publicly declare their support for one candidate running in one of the two political parties. In most states voters must chose to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary/caucus - they can't participate in both party's process. Once all the primaries and caucuses have been held, and one candidate has been selected to represent each of the parties, the parties hold their national conventions - the incumbent president's party always has their convention last. At the conventions, candidates are officially nominated to represent their party in the November general election. Party platforms (documents specifying the issues and policies the parties support) are written and adopted at the conventions too. National conventions are highly political.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:

Programs of private and public institutions favoring minorities and women in hiring and in admissions to colleges and universities in an attempt to compensate for past discrimination. This practice is very controversial.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Prohibited discrimination in public accommodations - schools, movie theaters, restaurants, etc. Prohibited the application of different standards to black and white voters by registrars and outlawed the rejection of black voting applications because of immaterial errors or omissions. Literacy tests had to be in writing and could consist of arbitrary standards adopted by local registrars. A sixth-grade education in an American school would serve as a presumption of literacy. Prohibited job discrimination because of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by employers or labor unions. Provided that federal funds to public or private programs that practice discrimination be terminated.

Abortion Rights

Roe v. Wade (1973) transformed abortion from a legislative issue into a constitutional issue and from a matter of policy into a matter of rights. Disapproval of abortion decreased and discussion of abortion increased during the 1960s. Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion for the majority prohibited states from interfering with a woman's decision to have an abortion in the first two trimesters of her pregnancy. Justice Blackmun based his opinion on the right to privacy (through the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments). Even after the appointment of new conservative justices in the 1980s-1990s, the Court has affirmed the basic principles of Roe v. Wade. That said, recent developments have eroded some abortion procedures (partial-birth abortions were ruled unconstitutional).

Political Speech:

Schenck v. US (1919) - Censorship only when speech poses a "clear and present danger." The standard set up by the Court in this case is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Doing so would cause an immediate panic that could end up injuring people as they try to exit the theater. If speech poses a clear and present danger, it is not protected. Notice that I used the word "immediate," though. This relates to the "present" aspect of clear and present. In other words, if what you say might cause a panic in two days, you're free to say it. Gitlow v. New York (1925) - Gitlow was a socialist who distributed a pamphlet called the "Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialist government. The case finally incorporated freedom of speech, meaning it applied to the states. Even though it incorporated freedom of speech to the states, Gitlow was still left in jail.

SCHOOL PRAYER:

School prayer cases are interesting because they combine issue of free exercise and establishment. Since the early 1960s, the Court has consistently ruled against nondenominational prayer or a period of silent prayer in the public schools. Below are some important cases related to the school prayer. Click on the links and read the case details. Engel v. Vitale (1962) - Ordered the state of New York to suspend its requirement that all students in public schools recite a nondenominational prayer at the start of each school day. Stone v. Graham (1980) - Ruled against posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms Lee v. Weismann (1992) - Ruled against allowing school-sponsored prayer at graduation. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) - Ruled that student-led prayer at school-sponsored events is un-constitutional. In other cases the Court has ruled that religious groups are allowed to meet in public schools and students are allowed to pray on their own or in unofficial study groups.

The Elderly & Disabled

Several federal and state laws now bar mandatory retirement and the courts have begun to strike down hiring practices based on age unless a compelling reason can be demonstrated. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) prohibits discrimination and requires reasonable efforts to increase accessibility in public facilities and places of employment. Notice that compelling reasons, like being able to lift heavy weights several times a day, can still be used as a reason to not hire an elderly applicant and accommodations not deemed "reasonable" do not have to be made to accommodate disabled employees.

Economic Voting:

Since economic voting is integral to retrospective voting, two theories of economic voting are important to understand - pocketbook and sociotropic voting. When pocketbook voting, evaluations are made on a personal level - voters ask the incumbent candidate/party, "What have you done for me lately?" In other words, a pocketbook voter only needs to know how well they are doing (do they have a job, are they able to pay their bills, etc.). When sociotropic voting, evaluations are made on a societal level - voters ask the incumbent candidate/party, "What have you done for the nation lately?" In other words, a sociotropic voter needs to know how well the country is doing (unemployment rate, GDP rate, etc.). Which of these two evaluations is more costly? Obviously, sociotropic voting is more costly. Taking into account Downs' theory, the three voting theories, and the economic theory, how do you think most people vote? If your answer is retrospective, pocketbook voting, you're correct. This is because these theories (retrospective and pocketbook), taken together, require the least amount of information, which means they are the least costly.

ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall not make laws respecting an establishment of religion. The establishment clause has been interpreted to require that government must take a position of neutrality. Here again, what constitutes "establishment" has changed over the years. Below are some important cases related to the establishment of religion. Click on the links and read the case details. Everson v. Board of Education (1946) - No state can use revenues to support institutions that teach religion. McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) - A program for teaching religion in public schools was found unconstitutional. Zorach v. Clauson (1952) - Supported program that let students leave school premises early for religious reasons. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) - This case established the three-part "Lemon Test" for dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must: 1) have a secular purpose; 2) the primary effect of the law must be neither to advance nor retard religion; and 3) government must never foster excessive entanglements between the state and religion. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) - Ruled that the university must provide the same financial subsidy to a student religious publication that it provides to other student publications.

Does it Matter Who Votes?:

Some argue that the rate of participation is unimportant because the preferences of those who vote are similar to those who do not vote. However, non-voters are clearly different from voters. Broader participation would increase popular sovereignty and political equality. Campaigning for Office - There are many factors to consider when contending for a presidential nomination. While this may sound harsh, certain candidate characteristics are important. For the most part, every president has been a white, male, protestant. Obviously Barack Obama broke the color barrier but we have yet to elect a woman president. We have only elected one Catholic and there have been no Jewish presidents. These days, unfortunately, looks seem to matter more than substance. This doesn't mean that we've elected unqualified individuals, but it is a troubling trend. Since TV became such a driving force in politics, we have not elected a bald man (hair gives a sense of vitality) and taller candidates (height gives a sense of power) have a better chance of being elected. Evidence of this can be found in the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in 1960. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won; those who watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy won. Why? Because Kennedy "looked" better. Watch a few minutes of this clip of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debate and you'll see how different the men look. Nixon refused to wear makeup, Kennedy didn't. Nixon looks sweaty and nervous. Also, Nixon wore a gray suit, which kind of blended into the background; Kennedy wore a dark suit, which made him stand out. These are just a couple of things that contributed to Nixon seeming to lose in the eyes of those who watched the debate on TV.

The Long Ballot

Texas has the long ballot, which is an election system that provides for the election of nearly every public official. As we discussed earlier in the semester, Texans are very distrustful of government. As such, we want to elect everyone! We do this as a means of keeping government officials accountable. The theory being - if they don't do what we want them to, we can throw them out of office. Because we elect everyone, the ballot can be very long, especially in the states' urban counties. For example, in 2012, Harris county voters faced a ballot with 130 offices listed. The long ballot is controversial; it is defended as well as criticized. It is criticized because it is unlikely that voters have enough information to rationally vote for all the candidates listed on the ballot. It is defended because, as I previously stated, it is an effective way to hold elected officials accountable.

Actions & Symbolic Speech:

Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. He argued that burning the flag was an expression of symbolic speech and protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed and found that flag desecration falls under free expression protections.

FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. This means that you can practice any religious beliefs you wish. Like everything else, this right is not absolute and has evolved over the years. Below are some important cases related to the free exercise of religion. Click on the links and read the case details. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) - Court upheld the expulsion of two schoolchildren who refused to salute the flag because it violated their faith as Jehovah's Witnesses. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) - Overturned Minersville School District v. Gobitis. Firmly established free exercise of religion as protected against the states.

Economic Liberty After the Civil War

The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott case and was designed to guarantee the citizenship rights of the newly freed slaves. It also applied the "Due Process Clause" (no state may "deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and "Equal Protection Clause" (no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws") to the states. During this time little attention was paid to the judicial protection of civil liberties and little progress was made in rights of women and African Americans

Undermining the Effectiveness of the Civil War Amendments

The Supreme Court transformed the constitutional structure into a protection for property rights, but not for African Americans or women. The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was rendered virtually meaningless by the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873). The Court found that the privileges and immunities clause protected only the rights of citizens of the United States as citizens, not as citizens of the states. The Court denied citizens protection against abuses by state government and equal protection soon lost all practical meaning. Voting guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment were rendered ineffective by a variety of devices (black codes) invented to prevent African Americans from voting in the former states of the Confederacy. These included "poll taxes," "white primaries," and "literacy tests." A poll tax was a tax that had to be paid in order to vote. This tax was often more than African-Americans could afford. In order to allow poor whites the ability to vote, a "grand farther clause" was in place. In other words, if your grandfather could legally vote, you didn't have to pay the poll tax. Of course, African-Americans' grandfathers could not vote, because they were slaves, so they had to pay the poll tax. White primaries were primary elections in the Southern states in which non-white voters were prohibited from participating. These were established by the Democratic Party to keep African-Americans from having a say in who ran in the general election. The argument used was that primary elections are party-based and private, so the Fifteenth Amendment right to vote didn't apply. Literacy tests were instituted as a way to exclude African-Americans, who, at the time, were not allowed decent educations, from voting. Here again, the grandfather clause allowed uneducated whites the ability to vote while excluding African-Americans. Below are actual sample questions from the Alabama literacy test. These questions shouldn't be too difficult for college students, but they were very difficult for people who were denied even a basic primary education - mostly African-Americans, at that time.

Intermediate Scrutiny

The Supreme Court will allow gender classifications in laws if they are substantially related to important government objectives. Intermediate scrutiny is applied to laws dealing with sex (gender) issues. What this means is that discrimination based on sex is legal in some circumstances.

CIVIL RIGHTS for WOMEN:

The Warren Court (1953-1969) did not significantly advance the cause of women's rights. The Burger Court (1969-1986) opted for the position of intermediate scrutiny, which meant the laws were not automatically considered unconstitutional. Craig v. Boren (1976) - Oklahoma's law establishing different drinking ages for men and women (21 for men and 18 for women) violated the Equal Protection Clause. In general, the beneficiaries of this classification have been men. Most advances for women have come from changed social attitudes, the increased involvement of women in politics, and new statutes.

Strict Scrutiny

The assumption that actions by elected bodies or officials violate constitutional rights. When a law triggers strict scrutany, the Supreme Court must hear the case.

The Autumn Campaign

The fall campaign traditionally began on Labor Day, but now tends to start right after the conventions or earlier. At this point, campaign organizations are set up in each state. Their job is to mobilize voters and get them to the polls on election day. Although the candidates have been fund raising for moths, or even years, before the autumn campaign, this kicks off a new round of intense money raising, combined with a new round of public financing for candidates who chose to accept public funding. At this point in the campaign, several other activities ramp up. First, there's a media blitz - candidates run campaign ads in states where polling indicates a tight race. Safe states, like Texas for Republicans and California for Democrats, are spared from much of these ads because candidates don't want to waste money in states they won't win. Candidates also start using focus groups to hone their messages. A focus group consists of potential voters who listen to, and/or watch, messages and ads. Afterward they are asked which ads and/or messages were most appealing. This is how we get slogans like "compassionate conservative" for Bush in 2000, "yes we can" for Obama in 2008, and "make America great again" for Trump in 2016. Finally, the campaigns push voter registration and voter turnout drives. The point is to register as many of your candidate's supporters, and get them to the polls on election day, as possible.

Expansion of the Franchise

The franchise (those who can legally vote) was quite restricted in the early years of the United States. At the time of our founding, only property owning, tax-paying, white males could vote. This was very restrictive. Restrictions based on property, tax-paying, and religion mostly disappeared by 1829. Restrictions based on race, gender, and age ended only after difficult and painful struggles. There are three important constitutional amendments to remember where the franchise is considered: Even with the expansion of the franchise, the proportion of the voting-age population (VAP) that is eligible to vote has dropped in recent years. This is because immigrants, even if legal, are not allowed to vote and some states, like Texas, restrict those who have committed a felony crime from voting. These folks are counted in the VAP even though they are not allowed to vote. A more accurate measure is the voting-eligible population (VEP). When calculating voter turnout, the VEP is always higher than the VAP. Why would that be the case? Simple math. There are more people who are voting-age but not eligible to vote. Removing those who are ineligible to vote changes the ratio.

PRIVACY:

The freedom to be left alone in our private lives (the right to privacy) is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This "right" has evolved through interpretation of the Constitution. The right to privacy is most closely associated with abortion rights. Read the linked cases below for more detail. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - Ruled that the right to privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights. This case became an important precedent for Roe v. Wade (1973). Roe V. Wade (1973) - Ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy. Vacco v. Quill (1997) - States are free to ban doctor-assisted suicide because there is no constitutionally protected right to die.

Suspect Classification

The invidious, arbitrary, or irrational designation of a group for special treatment by government. Suspect classification automatically triggers strict scrutiny.

Today's Standards

The main doctrine on discrimination at the present time is clear. Any use of race in law or government regulations will trigger strict scrutiny from the courts. Government can defend its acts under strict scrutiny only if it can produce a compelling government interest for which the act in question is a necessary means. Few laws survive this challenge. These legal protections do not mean that racial discrimination has disappeared from the U.S. One-third of African Americans and 1/5 of Latino and Asian men report experiences of job discrimination. Overwhelming majorities of African Americans, Latinos, and Asians say they have been subject to poor service in stores and restaurants because of their race, and have had disparaging remarks directed at them. All minorities report bad experiences with racial profiling. Racial profiling takes place when people are "assumed" suspect because of the color of their skin. For example, a car with four African-American teens driving in a predominantly white neighborhood is likely to be pulled over by the police. This practice has been termed "driving while black."

How Voters Decide

There are many factors, some of which we've already discussed, that contribute to the voting decision process. A few of the primary contributors are: Social characteristics - Blacks, Hispanics, women, lower educated, lower income voters are much more likely to vote for Democrats, white men with higher educations and more money are more likely to vote for Republicans. Party loyalties - People tend to, but not always, adopt their parent's party identification. If both of your folks are Republican/Democrat, you are most likely a Republican/Democrat and you will vote that way for most of your life. Interestingly, if parents support different parties, the children will most likely adopt their mother's party ID. Candidates - Candidate characteristics matter. You might just like one candidate more than the other. It was easy to like Obama - a young guy with an attractive family - over McCain, who was older, shorter, and had less hair. Issues - Issue voters vote based on one or a few very important issues. For example, if you are pro-life, pro-gun, and favor lower taxes, you vote for the Republican. Voters with inverse beliefs would vote for the Democrat. The economy - As mentioned before, the economy is the number one factor voters consider when voting for president. If the economy is healthy, voters reward the incumbent candidate/party with reelection; if it's not healthy, they punish them by throwing them out of office. Foreign policy - Although foreign policy usually plays a lesser role in presidential elections, prolonged, costly wars can hurt an incumbent. Johnson and the Viet Nam war were so unpopular in 1968 that he decided to not run for reelection; he knew he'd lose. On the flip side, successful foreign policy can help a president win reelection. Bush and the "War on Terror" in 2004 is an example.

RIGHTS of the ACCUSED

There is a conflict between concerns about controlling crime and concerns about protecting the rights of the accused. We all want to feel secure, but we must not trample on the constitutional rights of those accused of committing crimes. Here again, we see an evolution on rights of the accused. Different Courts have emphasized different values. The Warren Court (1953-1969) expanded due process, meaning it sided with the accused over law enforcement and preferred constitutional guarantees to efficient law enforcement. The Burger Court (1969-1986) preserved most of the basic due process decisions of the Warren Court, limited the further growth of protections, and introduced many exceptions - meaning it tried to strike a balance between protecting the accused and giving law enforcement the ability to pursue criminal activity. And the Rehnquist Court (1986-1995) reversed many due process protections - meaning it sided with law enforcement over the rights of the accused. The discussion on the rights of the accused is divided into four basic categories - unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination, right to counsel, and capital punishment (death penalty). As you read through these cases, notice the case dates. Doing so will allow y'all to identify how the three Courts discussed above sided with the accused or law enforcement.

Contemporary Status of Civil Rights for Racial Minorities

Two basic issues have dominated the story of the extension of civil rights since the mid-1960s: ending legal discrimination, separation, and exclusion, and the debate over what actions to take to remedy past wrongs. Ending legal discrimination, separation, and exclusion means making sure that African-Americans can attend any school they wish, not be excluded from groups or activities because of skin color, and having equal access to jobs, transportation, etc. Remedying past wrongs gets into issues like affirmative action, which will be discussed latter. Understand that there has been broad agreement on ending discrimination, separation, and exclusion for minorities, but there is not broad agreement on how to remedy past wrongs.

Types of Elections

Various types of elections can be identified. Each of the following type of election will be discussed in more detail in the following notes. In short, the types of elections in Texas are: General elections - Elections between candidates representing different parties. Primary elections - Elections between candidates within the same party. Local elections - Elections for mayor, city council, county sheriff, etc. Special elections - Elections held to fill vacancies in government positions between regularly scheduled elections. Noncandidate elections - Elections for bonds, initiatives, referendums, etc.

Prospective (Responsible Party) Voting Model Theory

Voters decide what government will do in the near future by choosing one or another responsible party (a party that takes a clear stand on the issues and enacts them as policy). To vote this way, voters need to know what the parties stand for (this information can be found in the party platforms) and the probability that the party can enact the policy if voted into power. Is voting this way costly? Yes. Knowing what the parties stand for isn't too costly as most people have a basic understanding of the issues favored by Democrats and Republicans. But what about calculating the probability of enacting preferred policy? All sorts of things need to be considered here - unified/divided government, ratio of majority in either or both chambers of Congress, etc.

Retrospective (Reward / Punishment) Voting Model Theory

Voters look back at the performance of a party in power and cast ballots on the basis of how well it did in office. To vote this way, voters only need to know how well things are going at the time of the election. If things are going well, candidates/parties are rewarded with reelection; if things are not going well, candidates/parties are punished and thrown out of office. The primary indicator of how things are going is the economy. High unemployment and recessions usually lead to the party in power losing elections. The 2008 election is a prime example. Is voting this way costly? Not near as costly as prospective voting. This is because voters don't need to calculate future benefits; they only need to have a basic understanding of how well things are going at the present time.

Jim Crow Laws

Were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in Southern states and localities. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public and private facilities including: schools, restaurants, hotels, public transportation, theatres, and restrooms. Many Jim Crow Laws banned interracial marriages. These laws remained in effect throughout the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Who Participates?

When we previously discussed Downs' economic theory of voting, I mentioned that political scientists, who had been concentrating on behavior as a predictor of voting, were surprised by Downs' approach. While Downs' theory is important, it doesn't fully explain why people vote. After all, many people vote who do not expect to benefit from the activity. This is where behavior and demographics come into play. Some of the most frequently used demographics are: Education - Education is the number one indicator of whether an individual is likely to vote. The relationship is simple - the higher the education, the more likely the individual is to vote. Reasons education is associated with voting are: being educated makes the process less complicated, educated people are better able to understand the issues, and educated people know when and where elections are, to name a few. Income - Income is highly correlated with education (meaning they are related), which is why income is the second best indicator of whether an individual will vote. People with higher incomes are the ones who pay federal income taxes and, therefore, have more of a stake in the system than those with less income who do not pay federal income taxes. Race - For much of the US history, whites were the most likely to votes, compared to other races. This was tied to the previous two demographics because whites had access to higher education, which afforded them higher incomes. Today, there is parity between whites and blacks - meaning whites and blacks vote at about the same rate. In fact, by a slight margin, a higher percentage of blacks voted in the 2012 presidential election than did whites. Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians vote at lower rates than whites and blacks. Age - The older the individual, the more likely they are to vote. The 65 plus cohort consistently has the highest voting rate, while the 18 to 25 cohort consistently has the lowest voting rate. While this is somewhat related to income and education, income and education don't fully explain the different voting rates between these cohorts. For reasons unclear, the 18 to 25 cohort is apathetic. Gender - Historically, males were more likely to vote than females. Of course, until 1920, women were not allowed to vote. Today, females are slightly more likely to vote than are males. Education is probably the driving factor in this turn.

Registration

active state registration, as opposed to voters registering themselves, may increase voter turnout; The one with no merit is registration. The Motor Voter law was passed in the early 1990s to make registering to vote much easier. It worked in that registrations went way up, but voting didn't increase. Why not? Think Downs. Basically, lowering the cost of registering didn't do anything to lower the cost of voting. Obviously the folks who passed Motor Voter weren't familiar with Downs' theory.

Proportional representation

appears to increase voter turnout because the pool of people finding it rational to vote is larger; Proportional representation (PR) is an interesting concept that will never be adopted in the US but it does help increase turnout. In a PR system, parties are awarded seats in the legislature based on the percent of the popular vote they receive. For ease of explanation sake let's say that our House of Representatives had 100 seats. In the next election if Republicans got 45% of the vote, Democrats got 40% of the vote, and Independents got 15% of the vote, Republicans would get 45 seats, Democrats 40, and Independent 15 seats in the House. There are two important aspects of PR that help increase turnout: decreases the feeling of a "wasted vote" and increases third-party representation.

Fifteenth Amendment (1870) -

gave black males the right to vote;

Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

gave women the right to vote;

Timing

less frequent elections seem to result in higher levels of voting; The three with merit are timing, scheduling, and proportional representation. We addressed timing earlier when we talked about voter fatigue. Because we vote so often, we vote at lower rates. The island nation of Malta has one election every four years. That's it, just one election. Voter turnout in Malta is consistently in the 90% range.

Arguments against:

violates idea that people viewed as individuals, not members of a group; benefits the already-advantaged within traditionally disadvantaged groups; brings new forms of discrimination; increases interracial tension.

Scheduling

voter turnout may increase when elections do not occur on workdays; Scheduling is an issue in the US because our national elections are scheduled on the first Tuesday, following the first Monday in November of even numbered years. The earliest an election can be held is Tuesday, November 2; the latest it will be held is Tuesday, November 8. The reason for this odd scheduling was originally associated with the end of harvest season when property owning men, the only people who could vote, would be in town and able to vote. Obviously, this is restrictive. Some countries have voting holidays, while others have multiple days for voting. Some states, Texas included, have adopted early voting laws that allow people to vote for a period of time (two weeks in Texas) before the November elections. Not surprisingly, turnout in the countries with better scheduling, and in states that have adopted early voting, increases.

Compulsory voting

voters are required, by law, to go to the polls and vote. Some of these have merit, one doesn't, and one is a no-brainer. The no-brainer is compulsory voting. If you make it illegal to not vote, turnout will increase. Folks who don't vote in compulsory countries are fined for not voting. This would never work in the US because we want to protect our right to not vote. After all, not voting can be used to send a message - All of the candidates suck!!