1. Civil rights issues in state and local government

2. Civil Rights issues Election of minority/women officials
We’ve already discussed the policy impact of electing more diverse groups of people to decision-making bodies such as city councils and state legislatures.
Disparities in criminal sentencing
As we’ve discussed:
Disenfranchisement after a felony conviction has a disproportionate effect on black citizens
Different penalties for similar crimes, e.g., possession of powder cocaine vs. possession of crack
African Americans are more likely to be arrested than whites who commit the same crime
If they’re both arrested, the African American is more likely to be convicted
If they’re both convicted, the African American is more likely to receive a harsher sentence
Killers of white victims are more likely to receive the death penalty than killers of black victims
The race of the victim appears to be more significant than the race of the killer

3. Civil Rights issues Minority hiring and contracting
Affirmative action in employment and college admissions
Abortion
Gay rights/gay marriage
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Miller v. Davis (Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples)
North Carolina HB 2 (not just about bathroom access)
Partially repealed in late March 2017
Immigration
Do states have the power to enforce immigration laws if they believe the federal government is failing to do so? (Arizona case discussed in Ch. 1 of Dye and MacManus)
Public K-12 education
Methods of integration and issues of funding equity (which we’ll discuss in more detail when we talk about education policy later in the semester)

4. Affirmative action
To what extent may race/gender be taken into account in formulating policies to erase the effects of previous discrimination on the basis of race?
Does any race-conscious policy, even one designed to correct previous discrimination, violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws?
Courts have ruled that “narrowly tailored” remedies are permissible and subject to “strict scrutiny” by the courts

5. Minority hiring and contracting
Effort to ensure that economic development benefits all segments of the community
Minority “set-asides” are a guarantee that a certain percentage of state/local business (construction contracts, subcontracts, purchasing, etc.) is done with companies owned or controlled by minorities or women.

6. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1988)
The city of Richmond, VA, required companies granted city contracts to subcontract 30% of the work to minority-owned firms.
This was intended to correct for past discrimination against minority-owned businesses.
This was challenged and the US Supreme Court struck it down as a quota.
Subsequent decisions have held that “goals” are permissible but quotas are not.

7. Minority hiring and contracting
Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995): A minority-owned company, identified as a “disadvantaged” business, was given a highway contract despite the fact that Adarand made a lower bid.
This practice was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that “race” was automatically assumed to constitute a “disadvantage.” This established the legal standard that race-based programs must be narrowly tailored and subject to strict scrutiny.

8. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978)
The medical school at the University of California at Davis reserved 16% of the seats in each class for black applicants.
Allan Bakke, a white man, was rejected for admission.
Black candidates with lower grades and test scores than Bakke were admitted because of the 16% quota.
The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action as a means of correcting previous discrimination is constitutional, but quotas are not.

9. Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Two cases from the University of Michigan
The law school had an admissions policy which took race into account but did not have a quota. Barbara Grutter, a white woman who was not admitted, challenged this.
She lost because the affirmative action program satisfied the Court’s requirements for a narrowly tailored remedy subject to strict scrutiny.

10. Gratz v. Bollinger
The undergraduate program at the U. of Michigan had a policy where an applicant would be admitted if they scored 100 of a possible 150 points on a scale.
Points were earned for high school grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, and other factors.
Members of underrepresented ethnic groups were given 20 extra points.
Jennifer Gratz, a white woman, was not admitted and argued that her rights were violated by the race-based point system.
The Supreme Court held that race may be taken into consideration, but that the point system was the equivalent of a quota.
Gratz won her case.

11. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Argued before the US Supreme Court, Oct
The University of Texas automatically admits any student who finishes in the top 10% of their high school class.
This makes up about 85% of their undergraduate student body.
Race may be considered in admissions of in-state students to the remaining slots, in order to achieve a “critical mass” of minority students, where the student body is diverse enough that affirmative action is no longer necessary.

12. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Abigail Fisher, a white woman, did not finish in the top 10% of her class and was not admitted to the class which entered in 2008.
She claims that minority students whose credentials were less than hers were admitted to the remaining slots, and that this violates her 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws.
The University won at the lower court level, but the US Supreme Court (2013) vacated this decision and sent it back to the lower courts for further review. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in November 2013 and once again upheld the University’s policy. Fisher appealed.
The Supreme Court reheard the case and ruled again in the University’s favor.

13. Affirmative action and women
Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn in the US (but not for doing the same jobs).
Traditional discrimination both in pay and in career advancement opportunities
Many professions are still overwhelmingly dominated by one gender (women are 10% of engineers and 73% of public school teachers).
Affirmative action for women appears to have been more successful in educational settings than in the workplace (women are now a majority of college students and earn a majority of degrees).
Should there be affirmative action programs for women in areas like engineering? What can state and local governments do about this?

14. Civil rights in state and local government
Gender discrimination has been outlawed in most, but not all, cases
Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn in the US (but not for doing the same jobs).
Traditional discrimination both in pay and in career advancement opportunities
Many professions are still overwhelmingly dominated by one gender (women are 10% of engineers and 73% of public school teachers).
Affirmative action for women appears to have been more successful in educational settings than in the workplace (women are now a majority of college students and earn a majority of degrees).
Should there be affirmative action programs for women in areas like engineering? What can state and local governments do about this?

15. ABORTION
Roe v. Wade (1973): US Supreme Court rules that bans on abortion early in pregnancy violate a constitutional right to privacy. The state had an increasing right to prohibit abortion as the pregnancy progressed.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989): Supreme Court upholds right to abortion while upholding some state restrictions on it and allowing states to enact further restrictions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): The Court again upholds basic right to abortion but upholds some state restrictions on it.
Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007): The court upholds a Nebraska state ban on “partial-birth abortion” even though it includes no exception for cases in which the woman’s health is endangered by continuation of the pregnancy.

16. ABORTION State restrictions/requirements which have been upheld:
Parental notification requirements for minors (with a judicial bypass)
Late-term (third trimester) bans
Informed consent requirements
Waiting period
Fetal viability testing after 20 weeks
Bans on public funding and abortion in public facilities or by public employees (state/county hospitals)
Ban on specific procedure

17. ABORTION Current issues:
May the state require an abortion clinic to meet the same standards as an outpatient surgery center, or require clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals?
Pending case from Texas
These requirements have caused many clinics to close and limited access to abortion in many areas
Is this an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion?
State restrictions/requirements which have been struck down:
Spousal notification requirements
Any ban that does not include exceptions for cases when the abortion is necessary to protect the woman’s life or health.