Nixon v. Herndon
The statute of the state of Texas, enacted in 1923, and designated Article 3093a, stating that under no circumstances may an African American vote in a Democratic party primary election held in that state, forbid an African American from voting in the primary election of 1924. Denial of the right to vote, pertaining to color, the plaintiff sought action under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
The plaintiff, Dr. L.A. Nixon, was a physician from El Paso, Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party primary elections on July 26, 1924 held in El Paso, though he had every right to vote. A member of the Democratic Party, a United States citizen, and a resident of El Paso, Texas, Dr. Nixon had every right to vote. The plaintiffs voting privileges were being barred due to his color, because of the State Statute (Article 3093a), which under the Equal Protection Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is unconstitutional (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
Dr. Nixon sued the federal district court against the State Statute that prohibited African Americans from voting privileges (Article 3093a). However, Dr. Nixon’s injunction was dismissed, on the grounds that the content of the lawsuit was political and not within the jurisdiction of the court. No violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments existed, according to the district court. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought his case to the United States Supreme Court, under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
The United States Supreme Court struck down the district court and placed an action of damages against the judge, since the judge had denied a qualified voter, based on color, the right to vote. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) is based on a United States Supreme Court decision where the state of Texas was denied the practice of the existing State Statute (Texas, 1923, Art. 3093a) (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
According to the Supreme Court, in Nixon v. Herndon (1927), Dr. Nixon’s Constitutional rights had been violated by being denied voting privileges based on color and none other, going against the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment was adopted after the Civil War in 1868, giving slaves Constitutional rights (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
On March 7, 1927, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the district court’s decision calling the case an error to the United States District Court for the western District of Texas. The Court awarded Dr. Nixon five thousand dollars in damages. In addition, the Court added that color cannot be the foundation of any statutory classification that influences individual rights in court cases (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s rulings, four months later, Texas passed a resolution continuing restrictions on individual voting privileges concerning color. The restrictions ensured an all-white voting population for the Democratic primaries (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927)
Dr. Nixon filed another lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party in the Supreme Court, Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932), five years later. The lawsuit again, was a case involving his right to vote in the all-white Texas Democratic Party primary elections. The United States Supreme Court found the all-white Democratic Party unconstitutional, however concluded that the state of Texas was acting under a state grant of power. The defendants argued that the party was a private organization and could decide on membership of individuals (Nixon v. Condon, 1932; Baker,n.d.).
The late nineteenth century suffered in deciphering specifics in equality issues, because cases were differentiated by social, political, and civil rights, bringing confusion to what powers the states actually had in each area, and what was actually unconstitutional (Baker,n.d.). To illustrate, nowhere in the Equal Protection Clause(1868) of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did the clause mention voting rights, specifically (Baker,n.d.). Therefore, the right to vote, despite a persons color, did not actually become a reality until the middle of the twentieth century in the United States (Baker,n.d.).The two cases challenging the Texas Democratic Party all-white primary elections, by African Americans, that finally allowed African Americans to participate in Southern politics were Grovey v. Townsend (1935), and Smith v. Allwright (1944) (Baker, n.d.).
Federal Fair Housing Act
An important social change of the twentieth century was the legislative accomplishments of the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 1960s legislative debates occurred concerning an individuals rights in the disposition of property and the right to conduct business freely, despite discriminatory mannerisms. The issue of equality and freedom for all despite race, ancestry, racial origin, or religion, opposes the preceding statement (Lockard, 1968).
In 1939, New York State initiated the first laws concerning a nondiscriminatory standard for public housing projects. However, the nondiscriminatory public housing law did not extend itself into private housing until years later in 1961. Public housing is government owned and operated housing projects (Lockard, 1968).
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 extended itself to laws concerning all housing projects, public and private, prohibiting nondiscriminatory actions. In 1957, New York City initiated the nations first fair housing ordinance. Thereafter, the ordinance became a model for municipal ordinances and state laws. Originally, the ordinance covered housing developments and multiple unit projects. The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 extended nondiscriminatory laws to all areas of real estate, public and private (Robison, 1968).
By 1968, the federal Fair Housing Act prohibited individuals to lease, rent, or sell property with discriminatory regulations in property deeds, or in rental agreements. A business could not refuse accommodations to an individual based on ancestry, color, race, national origin, or religion (Housing and Home Finance Agency [HHFA] 1964:287) (Collins, 2006).
Administrative agencies, in 1968, were not seeking out discriminatory practices. Instead, administrative agencies dealt with complaints of such practices through nondiscriminatory standards. Through the federal Fair Housing Act, housing laws were enforced by state-level administrative agencies responding to individual complaints (Collins, 2006).
Complaints of discrimination were brought to administrative agencies and were handled through an investigation. The alleged discriminatory party was asked to adjust his or her practices to a non-discriminatory manner, when the investigation brought evidence of discrimination (Collins, 2006).
Individuals could refuse to adhere to fair housing laws. A fine would be administered or the revocation of a real estate license, if an individual or business was proven to be operating under discrimination of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. In cases that refused to adhere to fair housing laws, public hearings were held and fines were administered (Collins, 2006).
Discrimination complaints were left at state-level. State laws did supersede the federal laws. When states adopted fair housing laws, enforcement authorities were extended to the law, that federal law did not incorporate (Collins, 2006).
Federal agencies did not change much until 1988. Between 1940 and 1970, racial discrimination in America was predominant. In 1944, a survey taken by whites from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) found 55% of white Americans believed white people should be chosen over African Americans in job opportunities. In 1968, 56% of white Americans believed that African Americans did not have the right to live in white neighborhoods and should be able to chose not to have them live there (Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985).
Fair housing legislation rose through the civil rights movement and the migration of the African American people. African Americans moved from southern rural areas to urban neighborhoods throughout the United States from 1910 to 1970. Discriminatory practices prohibited African Americans in having decent residential choices in metropolitan areas (Collins, 2006).
Family Law
Forty years ago, issues such as children born under wedlock, and same-sex marriages were not prevalent, nor were birthrights or abortion issues. Family law started with cases predominately expressing concerns in divorce, adoption, birthrights, and the validity of marriage. Originally, family law started as separate articles on decisional law. The main concerns of family law have always been concerned with issues that affect families on a daily basis such as divorce, property division, adoption, birth, child support, alimony, child abuse, custody rights, marriage, and so forth (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
At present, family law is not only concerned by the Supreme Court rulings, but by the fact that the conception of what constitutes a family has changed over a 40 years. Therefore, family law is defined more by function than by form (AN33218450). To illustrate, the Law in the 50 States Article 40 years ago concentrated on the main issues of the time being adoption, validity of marriage, and divorce. To name a few differences, the United States Supreme Court did not have to make decisions on the rights for children born outside of marriage, marriage as a fundamental right despite gender of parties, unwed fathers, and alimony for husbands, and the constitutional rights of children involved in juvenile cases (Elrod and Spector, 2008).
The complex nature of a family has changed in 40 years and has brought enormous issues to court leaving many lawmakers, judges, and professionals puzzled on what is morally correct in decisions made for difficult issues involving the well-being of others. For example, premarital contracts gave property upon death and not in divorce 40 years ago and cohabitation was a crime in most of the 50 states. In addition, same-sex marriages were not existent in any state (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
In 40 years, family law has moved more towards federalization through decisions made by the Supreme Court. Many more cases are handled through the federal courts. At present, six million people cohabitate, few people marry, and same-sex couples enter the decree of marriage in several states. State legislatures need federal impetus to change existing laws that do not reflect the change of times (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
To illustrate, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, 3 was passed by Congress in 2003 and prohibits physicians to perform the procedure of intact dilation and extraction. In 2000, a Nebraska law prohibited partial birth abortions even with the exception of a womans health at risk. The United States Supreme Court changed the Nebraska law, which banned partial abortions concerning a womans health issues at risk (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
The Deadbeats Parents Punishment Act was found to be constitutional over the years by the Third Circuit. Through the Child Support Recovery Act, the Eleventh Circuits decision that a parent must be aware of where his or her child is living affected child support rights. For example, a father cannot stop child support when the mother moves to another state and does not tell the father where the child and she are living (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
One of the most widespread international family law conventions is the Hague Abduction Convention. Today international family law is a wider issue. For example, cases show more abduction exists annually by mothers whom are the childs primary caregiver than in past years. The federal courts handled most of the Hague cases in 2008. The Hague Convention is used by nearly 80 countries successfully in resolving international family problems involving the United States. The United States approved the acquisitions of Lithuania, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Latvia, El Salvador, and Costa Rica (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
Custody rights have changed over 40 years of family law. Habitual residence determines persons rights of custody. For example, a family, who moves from one country to another, letting go of his or her former country as home, is considered a habitual resident of the new country. The settled intent approach is used by the courts in decisions made concerning custody rights of children since these issues can become extremely complex (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
On a national level, in 2008 family law involved debates concerning the war in Iraq, health care, immigration concerns, the financial crisis of a subprime mortgage market, and the weakening dollar. On a state level, family law brought state legislatures and courts into a continuing struggle of daily issues that affect the well-being of families, such as divorce, division of property, custody rights, abortion, adoption, child support, and the right to be married. On both levels, family law is most concerned with the physical, mental, and psychological well being of all persons within a family unit. Over the past 40 years, new issues have become known in the complexities of societal changes in morality and ethical decision-making. However, the premises of family law, is in keeping a balance and a strong code of ethics in the ongoing relationships of the family form (Elrod & Spector, 2008).
Proposition 69
The DNA, Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act, known as Proposition 69, was passed on November 2, 2004 (BFS, 2004). The Act is a controversial law that intrudes on individuals civil liberties (ACLU, 2004). Proposition 69 expands the criminal DNA databases and is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2004).
According to Maya Harris (ACLU, 2004, par. 5), the ACLU attorney and director of the Racial Justice Project, Law enforcement should not be allowed to seize that personal and private information when you havent even been charged with a crime. The state of California approved the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act, hoping to advance unsolved crimes through DNA samples. Proposition 69 dangerously expands criminal databases in that it threatens social justices and civil liberties, while offering few benefits in ensuring safety to citizens (Simoncelli & Steinhardt, 2006).
Persons opposing Proposition 69 state the adversarial justice the Act displays through collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony crime and before proven guilty is unconstitutional. The Act goes against the American Constitution that allows citizens to be innocent before proven guilty (ACLU, 2004).
Thousands of innocent people are arrested each year, yet are never convicted of a crime (ACLU, 2004). Charges are dropped, dismissed, or acquitted at trial, yet through Proposition 69, their DNA samples are in the criminal databases in the state of California (ACLU, 2004). In Rodney Wares case, a victim of identity theft for 12 years was arrested for a felony crime some other person committed under his name. At present, Mr. Wares DNA is part of the criminal database, despite being proven not guilty (ACLU, 2004).
The ACLU wants the federal court to protect citizens fundamental rights, to be secure from unconstitutional police searches, and to privacy in genetic, medical, and personal information (ACLU, 2004). The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit through the United States District Court in San Francisco to the State of California, against Proposition 69. The lawsuit claims Proposition 69 is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2004).
Individuals whom have been affected by Proposition 69 and whom are found innocent do have the right to appeal Proposition 69 and have his or her DNA record expunged from the criminal database. However, the process is difficult. First, the individual must find a judge who is willing to accept the case. Second, the prosecuting attorney has the right to deny the appeal. Finally, if the case is denied, the individual may not ever appeal the case (ACLU, 2004).
Before Proposition 69, the state of California law mandated that any individual convicted of a violent and serious felony crime, would have to give DNA samples for a statewide database. After Proposition 69 was enacted, any individual arrested and not yet convicted would become part of the criminal databases (ACLU, 2004). Many people who are now part of the criminal database are victims of identity theft, victims of police misconduct, lawful medical marijuana users, and political protestors (ACLU, 2004).
Prior to Proposition 69, the state of California law mandated any individual convicted of a violent or serious felony charge, would have to give DNA samples for a statewide database.
Proposition 69 is a serious threat to civil liberties and is unconstitutional (Simoncelli et al, 2006). The Act mandates the sharing of DNA samples with law enforcement agencies and private laboratories globally and nationwide. The Act reveals intimate information concerning individuals health, mentality, and predisposition (Simoncelli et al, 2006). Many are in question why law enforcement should be able to acquire such personal information from individuals, at such monetary and personal expense, when the expansion in the criminal database really does not help solve crimes more effectively (ACLU, 2004).
Federal Indian Law
The United States and the Indian tribes operate under the federal laws created by the 380 Indian treaties. Federal laws have a greater impact on Indian people than do state laws because of the Indian nation sovereignty under federal rule. Indian federal laws regulate the legal relationship between the Indian tribes and the United States (Getches, Wilkinson, & Williams, 1998).
The three main focal points of federal Indian law are concerned with Indian property rights and tribal sovereignty, state jurisdiction, and federal obligations and power. For these reasons, special legislations exist for each tribe depending on geographic locations and specific treaty provisions. Many rights, principals, and obligations differ from each tribe in federal-tribal legal relations (Getches et al, 1998).
The United States needed to keep the Indians on reservations as separate political entities. The separation was necessary in order to colonize the land. Through this colonization, Indians became sovereign political entities. Once the Constitution was adopted, the United States already had a long history of negotiations with the Indians through treaties (Getches et al, 1998).
Under the Tenth Amendment, power such as state police is weakened in Indian reservations. Tribal governments under federal laws maintain their own police authorities. Laws such as zoning, domestic relations, child welfare, and environmental degradation laws, exempt Indians from state jurisdiction, through the establishment of a reservation and the ruling under federal law. States or counties cannot tax Indian lands. Federal law is carried out exclusively in Indian lands through the necessary exclusion of state jurisdiction (Getches et al, 1998).
On the other hand, the United States government with the Indians regulates commerce (1 Stat. 137). Indians are not allowed to make land transactions on their own. The First Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 makes the government an active participant in all land transactions with Indian lands. The government uses the Act of 1790 to ensure Indian lands stay within Indian entities and to monopolize federal government land transactions (Getches et al, 1998).
Indians use tribal corporations to co-exist with non-Indian corporations. The Indian lands have oil, gas, mineral, and water rights that non-Indian entities need. The Indian tribes are sovereign entities within the United States, which means many laws do not apply to Indian reservations. For example, state gambling laws do not apply to Indian reservations under a Supreme Court ruling (Getches et al, 1998).
In juxtaposition, Indian rights can and are changed at the will of Congress. The United States government realizes the need to balance Indian and non-Indian entities and does so through changing Indian rights. For Example, in Wyoming farmers are affected by Indian water rights in irrigation projects. In New York, non-Indians landowners are affected by Indian land claims (Getches et al, 1998).
Many argue if changing rights at will is fair. Politicians continuously strive to nullify ancient Indian rights believing they have not changed with time. The oldest legal rights in America are that of the Indians. The United States government recognizes Indian rights in order to occupy the land (Getches et al, 1998).
There are many practical reasons for understanding federal Indian law in its entirety. The increasing activism in the United States court systems has brought on many more litigations. Federal Indian law is complex in understanding Indians position as being sovereign, the agreements made with 380 treaties, the lack of state jurisdiction, and the Indian land, mineral, gas, oil, and water rights (Getches et al, 1998).
The Leasing Of Indian Lands
Indian lands are leased by the approval of the Secretary of the Interior under 25 U.S.C. Section 415(a). Strict restrictions are outlined in Section 415, however the Secretary of the Interior has the power to alter terms as deemed necessary. A concern exists in Indian lands that are leased, in that Indians are not using the land themselves to learn better how to live off of the land. In addition, there are concerns of Indians cultural identity and values being altered by the influx of non-Indian communities. In Palm Springs, California, the Agua Caliente Reservation produces two million dollars a year in residential lease income for tribal members. While the income is helpful to the tribe the tribe has lost much of its cultural ways. Indians rely heavily on the income produced by land leases and are affected by non-Indian communities.
Tribal and allotted Indian lands must be leased by the individual Indian land owner or tribe. The Secretary of the Interior must approve all leases. Section 415, originally enacted in 1955, gives Indians the right to lease only the surface resources of the land. Indian lands may only be leased for businesses, recreation, religious, public, residential, or educational uses. Businesses may include the development and use of natural resources, farming, grazing, and specific business ventures deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Interior. For example, the Secretary of the Interior can chose specific crops to be harvested on Indian lands for land improvement, and so forth.
Leasing terms vary in length of time. Before Section 415, commercial development was widely discouraged for Indian lands. The reasoning behind this discouragement was that the federal government wanted the Indians to learn how to use the land for themselves to become successful at farming, ranching, and businesses. Therefore, before 1955 leases could not exceed five to 10 year terms. After the enactment of Section 415, leases cannot exceed 25-year terms, unless they are Indian lands outside the reservation boundaries of the state of New Mexico. Grazing leases cannot exceed a term of ten years. On the other hand, specific tribes are allowed 99-year leases for lands outside the boundaries of reservations when the Secretary of the Interior deems beneficial to both parties.
The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to renew leases. For example, leases where initial terms exceeded 74 years do not have the opportunity to renew leases, unless the federal government finds viable reason why the lease should be renewed. Lease terms are complex and controversial in nature. The complexity of lease negotiations have left many individual Indians feeling short changed by the lack of input they are allowed in Indian land leasing arrangements.
The U.S. Congress has the responsibility to regulate commerce for the Indians. Tribal and allotted Indian lands cannot be leased with out the involvement of the federal government, due to this responsibility of guardianship over Indian commerce. The basis behind statutes such as Section 415 is in the protection of Indian lands and values. The federal government has trust responsibilities concerning Indian lands and people. However the question has risen to what extent the government has in deciphering what is beneficial to the Indian people and what is not.
Indian Lands comprise 50 million acres in the United States. Seven million acres are leased to non-Indians through permits for grazing. Eight million acres are mineral leases. Indians are prohibited in using the surface of land in mineral leases, such as in strip mining. There is a concern that the mineral leases have an environmental disadvantage to Indian lands. Therefore the Secretary of the Interior must not only make decisions for the betterment of the Indians but for the Indian lands benefit as well.
Between 1890 and 1955, commercial developments on Indian lands were discouraged. During these years, leases were limited to five to 10 years. The reasoning behind this was that the federal government wanted Indians to learn how to use the land to become less dependent on the government. However, Section 415 changed leasing terms and has brought lease income to the Indians where as otherwise they would not have. This still does not solve the problem Indians face at present in using the land to become financially independent from the government.
Indian reservations rely on lease income to survive. Land is a primary economic resource for the Indians. Indian land leases do bring greater populations of non-Indians to reservations, and states are now in the position to start exercising their taxing powers over businesses on the reservations. The Secretary of the Interior has complex issues in decision-making in deciding what is most beneficial for Indians. Tribal authority and cultural issues are far greater concerns at present to add to the governments responsibility to protect the Indians through an economic trust guardianship.