dan_admin_civil

When the Voting Rights Act came up for renewal of its pre-clearance mechanism for the second time in 1975, Congress didn't just update its coverage formula and leave the statute in place. It amended the core provisions of the VRA, in relevant part, by adding provisions protecting "language minorities," including "persons who are ... of Spanish heritage." What did that mean in 1975? That question yields a clear answer upon consideration of the historical context, the text itself (supported by contemporaneous usage), Congress's enacted legislative findings, and the relevant legislative history -- those whose native language is Spanish, a disadvantaged group that is not identical with all Hispanics. But the courts have never applied this clear answer. The population Congress sought to protect through the 1975 amendments still largely suffers from the same problems Congress enacted the 1975 amendments to address. Instead, a misreading of the language of the amendments has yielded irrelevant relief to other groups for generations. This piece originally ran in The Federalist Society Review, Vol. 22.

Fashions and fads tend to lead people wrong. You probably have a list of unfortunate ones in mind right now. Mullets? Bell-bottoms? Banded-collar shirts? Boy bands? The one at the top of my own list is equally offensive, but more freighted: the corporate "diversity and inclusion" policies sweeping the world's boardrooms in violation of both longstanding federal law and the American moral consensus. Newsweek originally published this piece in its Opinion section.

The American Civil Rights Project, a national civil rights organization, is investigating on behalf of shareholders the officers and directors of Coca Cola Company (NYSE: KO) for breaches of fiduciary duties.

Is all racism equally bad or does racial discrimination’s moral status turn on who is (mis)treating whom?  We can learn from the literature on bullying why the first must be right.