Home » LAW » SYLLABUS: PolS 359, Topics in Public Law. Constitutional Law: Black Americans, Voting Rights, and Election Laws

SYLLABUS: PolS 359, Topics in Public Law. Constitutional Law: Black Americans, Voting Rights, and Election Laws

Constitutional Law: Black Americans, Voting Rights and Election Laws. Same as BLST 394.

Prof. Kevin Lyles
9:00 – 9:50, 120 Taft
Office: 1147 BSB 
Fall 2022. Office hours are virtual (Zoom) or Fridays 11-1 by appointment
Email: lyles@uic.edu
UIC Blackboard: (https://Blackboard.uic.edu/) (required)
Teaching Assistant (RA/TA): Aydin Vakilian Maleki avakil4@uic.edu

Political Science 359.  Topics in Public Law. 3 hours.
Course Information: 3 hours. Survey of judicial policymaking in the arena of voting and elections from the founding of the republic to the present, focusing on landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court.Fulfills a selective requirement for the Major in Political Science, Concentration in Law and Courts.  Prerequisite(s): POLS 258 or POLS 353 or POLS 354 or POLS 356 or POLS 358 or consent of the instructor. Same as BLST 394. Special Topics in Black Studies Constitutional Law: Black Americans, Voting Rights and Election Laws.

Topic, Fall 2021: Constitutional Law: Voting Rights and Election Law
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
I have designed this topics class to be a multidisciplinary survey of voting rights and election laws from 1787 to the present, focusing on landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Special focus is given to the struggles of African-Americans, women, the poor, the incarcerated, the homeless, and others, in the electoral process.

This class provides a survey analysis of voting and election political-legal history through the lens of significant legal doctrines and court decisions starting in the late 1600s to the present day. History shows these are pivotal decisions that have forged new tests and doctrines that reflect or portend major shifts and changes in law as it relates to full citizenship. Significant decisions are defined as not only those cases that suggest new doctrines, major shifts, or new directions in the law; but, additionally these are cases that contribute to a deeper understanding of the enduring challenges faced by many Americans in the electoral process.

The central thrust of such cases, however, cannot be fully grasped unless viewed in broader political-social context, and that is one of the major objectives of this class. A political-social context influences, and is in turn influenced by, actions and policies that emanate from a myriad of interests, including elective political institutions (e.g., the president, Congress, governors, mayors, etc.), and from non-elective entities, including administrative agencies, federal and state courts, public opinion, and interest groups. Though many leading constitutional law casebooks (e.g., Barker and Lyles, Civil Liberties and the Constitution, 9th edition) utilize a categorical or doctrinal approach, this class (PolS 359) is organized chronologically. A chronological approach enhances the use of political-social context analysis and allows the student to see more clearly the patterns and rate of change, the enduring permanence, the ironies, the dualities, the contradictions and continuities in the laws regarding voting and elections in the United States.

COURSE FORMAT
The class will be conducted in a semi-formal seminar format utilizing the Socratic Method and team-based learning. This format lends itself to continuous active engagement and dialogue between the professor and students and among students themselves. Accordingly, students are required to attend and participate in class. For every required Supreme Court decision students should be prepared to summarize the competing arguments presented to the Court and to explain the Court’s rationales (reasoning, legal doctrines, use of precedent, etc.) for deciding the case. Meaningful participation, however, requires that students must come to class prepared. Should this occur the class can prove interesting, challenging, and exciting. A word of caution: it is important that students prepare for each class since material is cumulative and the workload increases dramatically as the semester proceeds. Attendance in class and participation in discussion seminars is both mandatory and essential. I will randomly take attendance. Your attendance grade will be calculated based on the percentage of days you are present when attendance is taken. For example, if attendance is taken 10 times and you are present 8 of the ten times, then your attendance is 80%. Lastly, students are REQUIRED to “brief” every required case and bring their written briefs to class.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
By the end of the semester, students should be able to:

  • Explain many of the complex relationships between law and public policy.
  • Utilize landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court as vehicles to survey and explain developments in voting rights and election law, 1600-present day.
  • Apply the interaction of law and politics in discussing the boundaries and constraints of race, gender, violence, power, class, and political participation in defining voting rights in the United States.
  • Relate the legal process and judicial policy-making to the larger American political process.

MY TEACHING PHILOSOPHY 
Learning to teach at the highest levels of the academy is a never-ending process. It has been argued that the vast majority of professors lack basic communication skills and we often use the classroom to enact rituals of control that are rooted in domination and the unjust exercise of power (bell hooks. Teaching to Transgress, p. 5). I have spent much of my career trying to avoid this trap. I want my classroom to be an exciting place where students feel safe to express themselves, for it is only then that we can achieve higher learning. It is my goal to acknowledge everyone’s presence and I value everyone’s presence.

I am also acutely aware of the various and unique sensitivities that play out in classes that explore issues of race and gender. We are a diverse group (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, identity, etc.) and each of us has something to contribute to our community of learning. I want you to be engaged and active participants. To that end, the WordPress sites also serve as a voice for student expression and the free exchange of ideas—a safe environment sans the fear of expressing ourselves in class.

I find that many students would prefer “more lectures” and “less discussion” in my classes. I try to transgress traditional boundaries and to avoid “assembly-line” approaches to learning. I want to engage students and I take some non-traditional risks when I teach. As a research-trained academic, I am always looking for answers. We learn from each other. For example, part of my teaching style is to bring narratives of my limited personal experiences into the classroom—not only to personalize the material but to also show how our individual experiences (both yours and mine) can illuminate and enhance our understanding and deconstruction of academic material. Admittedly, I do most of the talking, but I want us to hear each other, to listen to each other, and to recognize that the work of learning and processing this material is different for each of us.

Most research concludes there are two approaches to teaching constitutional law: (1) lectures and (2) the Socratic Method. Traditional lectures are a popular and primary method of classroom instruction used in college today. I find that the lecture method, if done well, is an efficient system for delivering information to students. However, the lecture method of instruction has been widely criticized, “primarily on the grounds that it places students in a passive learning environment. It may also be less effective in developing analytic skills. The lecture method is weakest in helping students to develop their speaking abilities or critical thinking skills.” But, lecturing is also the easiest way for professors to teach; it requires the least amount of knowledge, effort, risk; requires limited skill; and is extremely safe. It works well for me when I teach introductory classes like PolS 101.

An alternative to the lecture method is the Socratic Method. This is a form of instruction that is popular—and probably predominant—in law school classes, and this method is also used in undergraduate classes, especially law courses. “Professors use the Socratic Method in a wide variety of ways, varying from posing a series of friendly questions to an intense grilling of students with difficult questions and abstract queries.” Debate exists in the political science literature over the benefits and disadvantages of the Socratic Method. “The Socratic Method forces students to think on their feet and to articulate their ideas orally. However, the Socratic Method may not be as efficient in transmitting basic knowledge as does the lecture method.” In my classes and seminars, I try to utilize a modified Socratic Method in a low-threat/discussion manner that does not penalize or humble students for poor responses.

However, even my low-threat Socratic Method can be frustrating if students have not read the assigned material, are not prepared for class, or do not attend class. It is frustrating (1) for me; (2) for the students who are prepared for class and want to engage; and, (3) for students who are not prepared but who plan on taking detailed class notes to help them prepare for exams. To avoid this frustration, students must come to class prepared! Welcome to my class and I look forward to an exciting learning experience.

Additional Course Rules
All students must utilize the UIC Blackboard Learning system and WordPress

Students should be familiar with UIC’s policies regarding academic integrity. These guidelines can be found at the following URL: https://dos.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/262/2018/10/Guidelines-for-Academic-Integrity.pdf

The tape recording of any part of my class (or the use of any other electronic recording device) is strictly prohibited.

Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access and participation in this course must be registered with the Office of Disability Services (ODS). Please contact ODS at 312/413-2103 (voice) or 312/413-0123 (TTY). If you have a documented disability and wish to discuss academic accommodations, please contact me immediately.

A. Readings/Case Law.
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. All assigned cases must be read prior to the class session for which they are assigned. Be prepared to review and discuss all assigned cases and readings in class.

Required [Texts]:
Kevin Lyles, African-American Legal History (Excerpts on the Google Site) WordPress
UIC Blackboard: (https://uic.blackboard.com/ultra/) (required)Nexis Uni (required)

  • New version of Lexis Nexis Academic featuring news, business, and legal sources, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1790, full-text law review articles, thousands of full-text news sources in English and other languages, aggregated economic data on businesses, corporations, and industries in the U.S. and abroad.

Recommended Texts:
Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law, 2nd edition (2015)  SEE ME BEFORE YOU BUY THIS BOOK
Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law, 2nd edition (2019 Supplement) 

Book Review Essay Options (select one):
Lani Guinier, Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy (1994)
Katherine Tate, From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections (1994)
Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (1987)
Frank Parker, Black Votes Count: Political Empowerment in Mississippi after 1956 (1990)


B. Assignments.
In addition to written examinations at the mid-term and final grading periods and WordPress posts, students may choose to prepare a written book review for extra credit. Additionally, throughout the semester there may be several short out-of-class research assignments, required case briefs (turned in), and frequent review quizzes (both in-class and take-home). These will be discussed later.

Computation of Course Grade
Midterm Exam 30%
Final Exam 30%
Attendance 30%
WordPress (case briefs and comments) 10%
Optional Book Review Essay 5 points added to total class score          

Additional Attendance Policy (Fall 2021) If you fail to attend SYNCHRONOUS class more than EIGHT times, your course grade will be lowered by one letter grade. If you fail to attend class more than TEN times, your course grade will be an F. There will be no exceptions.

SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. All assigned cases must be read prior to the class session for which they are assigned. Be prepared to review and discuss all assigned cases and readings in class.

Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access and participation in this course must be registered with the Office of Disability Services (ODS). Please contact ODS at 312/413-2103 (voice) or 312/413-0123 (TTY). If you have a documented disability and wish to discuss academic accommodations (including electronic recording), please contact me immediately.

Students should be familiar with UIC’s policies regarding academic integrity. These guidelines can be found at the following URL: http://www.uic.edu/ucat/catalog/GR.shtml

From time to time you will be required to locate cases on your own online [Lexis Uni].

Also, Not all required materials listed on the syllabus will be discussed in class; however, all required material—whether discussed in class or not—is appropriate for examinations. In other words, although we may not cover all required materials in class, it may still be on the test!

WEEK 1 Monday August 22
Read the syllabus for 359
Be sure to review all the course requirements.
Review the course requirements again, and then again.
Constitutional Law with Lyles
Extra Credit Guidelines
What is a Case Syllabus and/or Headnotes? 
POST a comment HERE before the second day of class.

Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition)
CHAPTER 1. Civil Liberties and the Constitution
A Framework for Analysis, pp. 1-2
Law and Courts in Political-Social Context, pp. 3-5 
Congress, the President, and Administrative Officials, pp. 5-8
Interest Groups and the Dynamics of Civil Liberties, pp. 8-9 
More on the Court: Inside the Marble Palace, pp. 9-13 
The Rules of the Game and American Political Values, pp. 13-16

Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition)
CHAPTER 2.  CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERALISM, pp. 17-19
The Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, pp. 19-23
State Constitutions, pp. 23-26 
State Judicial Selection, pp. 26-27
Conclusion, p. 27
Lecture 1.  Introduction to Courts and Law. 
Democracy: Theoretical Frameworks in James A. Gardner and Guy-Uriel Charles, Election Law in the American Political System (2012). Students should skim/review pp. 1-36, and post a comment before the end of week four.


WEEK 2 Monday August 29
Lecture 2: The Federal Courts: Nature and Structure of the Legal and Political System.
Lecture 3: Courts as Policy-making Institutions. Martin Shapiro and Robert Dahl
Martin Shapiro v. Robert Dahl
[optional] Dahl, Robert. “Decision-making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, vol. 6. (1957).
[optional] Casper, Jonathon D. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making,” American Political Science Review 70 (1970): pp. 50-63.
[optional] Barker, Lucius. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function,” Journal of Politics 29 (1967): pp. 41-69.
[optional] Funston, Richard. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): pp. 795-811.
[optional] Baum, ch. 4-6
[optional] Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Courts in the Political Process, ch. 1, pp. 1-9.
EXTRA CREDIT:  Kevin Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Court in the Political Process, chapter 3, Judicial Selection
Lyles, The Bork Confirmation Battle: A Case Study on Judicial Selection, Lyles, (1994) [optional]
[optional] Amicus Curiae (skim)

FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 2: NO CLASS, CLASS will NOT meet on Friday Sept 2

WEEK 3
Monday September 5, Labor Day.  No formal class.

Wednesday September 7 is AN ASYNCHRONOUS DAY. Complete the following assignments at your convenience this week before Friday:

Nature, Structure, and Operation of the Supreme Court
Skim: “A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court” 
[optional] The Constitution of the United States of America [pp. 807-817]
[optional] *Alexander Hamilton, et. al. The Federalist Papers, No. 78-81
[optional] “Understanding the Federal Courts
How and Why to Brief a Case
Marbury v. Madison    [everyone should write their first brief AND post something on this page before the next class]
Also, you are required to watch my Summer 2020 Blackboard lecture on Marbury v. Madison, found on the top of the page.

Also, watch The Supreme Court Visitor’s Film (C-Span, narrated by A.E. Dick Howard) click here:  Supreme Court Visitor’s Film [everyone must post a comment TODAY]

Extra Credit. The Story of Marbury v Madison, by Michael W. McConnell

Friday September 9 is in-class

Week 4 Monday Sept 12
Final introductory lecture and comments.  
The Danger of the Single Story ALL students are required to comment before the end of the school week. Comment on how this “story” might relate to Voting Rights and Election Law?
“Voting Qualifications,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2017), pp. 1-6. 1776.
1776 Abigail Adams

[OPTIONAL] 1400-1788:  We come to this class with different backgrounds and educational experiences. Some of you have taken my PolS 358 and have an advantage in this class. I assume that everyone has taken general courses in American History, either in high school or in college.  Those courses, by definition, explored the history of chattel slavery in the United States and its impact on our Constitution and laws.  If you have not, you may have difficulty understanding many of the underlying themes of this class, PolS 359, Constitutional Law: Black Americans, Voting Rights and Election Laws. Same as BLST 394. You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find some of that optional material, chapter 1, here, Wading in the Water, Black American Legal History: Cases, Materials, and Analysis, Chapter 1, 1400-1788. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for this class, PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358.  Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359. Most of the material in Chapter 1, 1400-1788, predates your class, but it provides the relevant context for your class, 359.

1776  Declaration of Independence, or, “I’ll take six”
1777 The Articles of Confederation
Slavery and the United States Constitution
1788. Article I, Section 2, par. 3 The “three-fifths compromise” 
Article I, Section 9, par. 1  
Article IV, Section 2, par. 3
Article V 

[OPTIONAL] 1788-1857:  You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find some of that optional material, chapter 2, here, Wading in the Water, Chapter 2, 1788-1857. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for this class, PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358 Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359.

1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790
1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
1833. [optional] Barron v Baltimore [Non-incorporation, Selective Incorporation and the Nationalization of the Bill of Rights]  Take PolS 353 and 354
1800-1860. Black American Voting Rights in the NORTH (Lyles, ch. 2)
1850. Black Americans loose the vote in Michigan (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
1851. Delaware prohibits Black Americans from voting (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
1857. Dred Scott 1857 [citizenship] (Lyles, ch.2) 1858. 

[OPTIONAL] 1858-1896:  You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find some of that optional material, chapter 3, here, Wading in the Water, Chapter 3, 1858-1896. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for this class, PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358 Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359.


Lincoln or the Red Pill (Lyles, ch.3, p. 8-9)
1865. Thirteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, p. 19-20).
1865. Elizabeth Cady Stanton to the Editor, This is the Negro’s Hour, National Anti-Slavery Standard, New York, 26 December 1865, in Baer and Goldstein, 4th edition, pp. 34-36.
1866. Voting Rights and the KKK (Lyles, ch.3)
1867. Military Reconstruction Acts (Lyles, ch. 3, p. 28-29).
1868. Fourteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 29-30).
1870. Fifteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 30-32).
1870. The Enforcement Acts, 1870, 1871
1873. Butchers’ Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (The Slaughter-House Cases) [dual citizenship] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 36-38)

1875. Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett [disenfranchisement of women](Lyles, ch. 3, p. 42), add Baer.
1876. United States v. Hiram Reese [disenfranchisement of African-Americans] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 43-45). 
1876. United States v. Cruikshank [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 45-48).
1877. Hayes-Tilden Presidential Election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877 (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 48-51).
1883. [optional] The Consolidated Civil Rights Cases [private v. public discrimination] (Lyles, ch.3, p.57-59)
1884. Ex Parte Yarbrough [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 59-62)

Week 5 Monday Sept. 19
1890. The “lily-whites” and the “black and tan” (Lyles, ch.3, p. 63-65).
1890s. In Re Green [state control of elections, 1890]
1890s. Black American Disenfranchisement, e.g., the Grandfather Clause (Lyles, ch.3, p. 64-66).
1892. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, [remedying errors in elections, state remedies for federal elections], Lexis Uni or Domino
1896. Plessy v. Ferguson [separate but equal] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 67-75).

[OPTIONAL] 1897-1950:  You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find some of that optional material, chapter 4, here, Wading in the Water, Chapter 4, 1897-1950. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358 Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359.

Lyles’ comments on The Electoral College for PolS 359
1898. Williams v. Mississippi 170 U.S. 213 [reading and interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch.4).
1898. The Wilmington Riot 1898 [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.4, pp. 5-6).

1900. [optional] Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, [remedying errors in elections, public and private remedies], Lexis Uni
1901. Sidebar: Disenfranchisement in Virginia, 1901- 1903. (Lyles, ch.4, p. 6). 
1901. Downes v. Bidwell (1901)
1903. Giles v Harris [reading and interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch.4).
1904. Pope v. Williams 193 U.S. 621, [the newly resident] Lexis Uni
1908. The Springfield Riots and the Founding of the NAACP
1911. [optional] The Lynching of Laura Nelson 

Week 6 Monday Sept. 26

Today, MONDAY SEPTEMBER 26 is an asynchronous day.  We will not meet on Blackboard Collaborate at 9 a.m. You must watch the film “Iron Jawed Angels” and post a comment before class on Wednesday.  There will be a quiz at the start of class on Wednesday.

[optional] Extra Credit: Cokie Roberts Reflects on Women’s Suffrage on the 100th Anniversary of the Senate Passing the 19th Amendment
1912. [optional] Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph c. v. Oregon 223 U.S. 118, [political questions] Lexis Uni
1915. Guinn v. United States [literacy tests] (Lyles, ch.4).
1915. Woman Suffrage and the Fifteenth Amendment. [gender and voting] Mary Church Terrell
1917  Woman Suffrage and the Negro 
1919. [optional]  Mary Turner, Red Summer (1919) and Fighting Back

1920. Baer and Goldstein, [gender and voting] 4th Edition, pp. 43-49 , Women and the Vote by Constitutional Amendment
1920. The 19th Amendment [gender and voting]
[optional] Extra Credit. Video, American experience. One woman, one vote, Schwartz, Bonnie Nelson, producer.; Widmann, Felicia M., producer, director.; York, Steve, director.; Klugerman, Ira H., director.; Sarandon, Susan, 1946- narrator.; Public Broadcasting Service (U.S.), film distributor.; Education Film Center (Annandale, Va.), production company.; Title from resource description page (viewed January 28, 2021). 2020


1920. Black Women and the Right to Vote, by Darlene Clark Hine and Christine Anne Farnham
1921. Newberry v United States [“whites only” primaries] (Lyles, ch.4).
1927. Nixon v. Herndon 1927 [“whites only” primaries] (Lyles, ch.4).


Week 7 Monday October 3
1932. Nixon v. Condon [“whites only” primaries] (Lyles, ch.4). 
1935. Grovey v. Townsend 295 U.S. 45, [“whites only” primaries, political parties] (Lyles, ch.4). 
1937. Breedlove v. Suttles [Georgia poll tax] (chapter 4)
1938. United States v. Carolene Products 1938 Footnote 4 Stone
1940. Lane v. Wilson [racially discriminatory voting eligibility] (Lyles, ch.4). 
1941. United States v. Classic [“whites only” primaries] (Lyles, ch.4).

1944. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, [“whites only” primaries, political parties] (Lyles, ch.4). 
1946. Colegrove v. Green 328 U.S. 549 [political questions] (Lyles, ch.4, p. 54, footnote).
1947 [optional] United Public Workers of America (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni

Week 8 Monday October 10
(Midterm Exam Week) 
North–South Split in the Democratic Party (Lyles, ch.4).
1948. Rice v Elmore [“whites only” primaries] (chapter 4). [1952] 
[optional] Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214  [presidential electors and the Electoral College.]  See Chiafalo v. Washington 591 U.S. ______ (2020)
1953. Terry v. Adams, 354 U.S. 461, [“whites only” pre-primaries, political parties] (Lyles, ch.4)
Review: Voting Rights (From U.S. v Reese to Terry v Adams)

[OPTIONAL] 1951-1955:  You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find chapter 5, here, Wading in the Water, Chapter 5, 1951-1955. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358.  Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359.

______________________________________________________________________________
THE FALL 2022 MIDTERM

359 Midterm Week

Monday, October 10, the class meets as usual in 120 Taft

Also, you will begin Midterm Exam Part 1 on Monday. Midterm Exam Part 1 is worth 5% of your midterm grade. Part 1 of the Midterm Exam is due no later than 9 a.m. on Wednesday October 12. Post your answers here (exam questions) on WordPress.

Wednesday, October 12, class does NOT meet in 120 Taft.  This is an asynchronous day. Part 2 of the Midterm Exam begins at 9 a.m. on Wednesday October 12. Part 2 is an essay question(s). You will have access to the midterm essay question(s) on Blackboard starting at 9 a.m.  Part II of the exam is worth 45% of your midterm grade. Normally, I give this part of your exam in-class and you write your answers in a “blue book.” However, since we are all coming out a pandemic and have been taking many exams “open-note,” I will give the exam on BB this fall. Your answer is due on Friday, October 14, before 9 a.m. You will paste your answer directly on Blackboard, Midterm Exam Part 2. This is an open-note exam.

Friday, October 14, class meets in-person in SES 205. Part 3 of the Midterm Exam is an objective test (multiple choice, true/false, machining, short answer, etc.) on Blackboard. You will take the exam in the computer lab, 205 SES. You will have 50 mins to complete the objective test (Part 3). This is a closed-note exam. You have from 9 to 9:50. Your TA, Aydin, will proctor the exam.  I may include some of your original questions (or variations) from Part I (above) in Part III of this exam.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 
Week 9 Monday October 17
The Warren Court 1954-1969

Review midterm essay
1954. Brown v. Board of Education 1954 (Lyles, ch.5.)[required to the extent discussed in class]

[OPTIONAL] 1955-1969: You may find it helpful to review some of the material I require for PolS 358, Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History.  You can find chapter 6, here, Wading in the Water, Chapter 6, 1955-1969. You are not required to read these chapters, but you may find the material helpful in providing context for PolS 359.  You are also welcome to look at the syllabus and WordPress pages for my class PolS 358.  Again, this material is required for PolS 358 but is OPTIONAL for your class, PolS 359.


1957. John Hope Franklin. “Legal Disfranchisement of the Negro”
1957. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 (Lyles, ch. 6).
1957. [optional] United States v. International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 352 U.S. 567, [campaign finance, basic principles] Lexis Uni
1959 Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, [literacy tests]
1960. United States v. Raines [voter suppression “wrongful acts and practices”] (Lyles, ch. 6).
1960. United States v Thomas [voter suppression, removal of names from voter rolls] (Lyles, ch. 6).
1960. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 [e.g., retention of voting records] (Lyles, ch. 6). 
1960. Gomillion v. Lightfoot 1960, 364 U.S. 339 [political questions/gerrymandering to suppress] (Lyles, ch. 6)
1962. Baker v. Carr 1962 369 U.S. 186, [political questions/reapportionment] [(Lyles, ch. 6). [population]

1963. Gray v. Sanders 372 U.S. 368, [one person, one vote] (Lyles, ch. 6, ).
1963. President Kennedy and Civil Rights, Feb. 28, 1963 Message to Congress
1963. Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail 1963
1964. Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1, [one person, one vote] (Lyles, ch. 6). [population]
1964. Anderson v. Martin [the name and race (in parentheses) of the candidates on ballots] and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment (Lyles, ch. 6).

Week 10 Monday Oct. 24
MONDAY October 24 is an asynchronous day.  We will not meet in Taft Hall at 9 a.m. You must watch ALL the videos at https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/law/bloody-sunday-and-selma/ and post a detailed comment (essay response) before class on Wednesday. Your comment/essay will count for your attendance for today.
1964. Malcolm X, The Ballot or The Bullet 
1964. [optional] EXTRA CREDIT: King v Malcom X
1964. [optional] Title II of the CRA 1964
1964. [optional] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
1964. Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533, [one person, one vote] (Lyles, ch. 6). [population]
1964. [optional] “Political Speech,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), pp. 571-574. 
1964. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, [political speech, “actual malice”], Lyles, chapter 6 and/or Lexis Uni. Also, see PolS 354 under “freedom of the press.” Required to the extent discussed in class.
1965. Carrington v. Rash 380 U.S. 89 [the newly resident] Lexis Uni
1965. President Johnson and Civil Rights  [PolS 359, focus on the red text on this page.]

Week 11 Monday October 31
1965. Louisiana v. United States [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6), and,
1965. United States v. Mississippi [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6).
1965. Lyles: Freshly Painted White Walls
1965. REPEATED PAGE: Review: Voting Rights (From U.S. v Reese to Terry v Adams
1965. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 62-64). 

Wednesday, November 2 is an ASYNCHRONOUS DAY
Everyone must watch 2+ films and submit an essay question answer for the final exam.

First, watch Eyes on the Prize – Season 1, Episode 6 – Bridge to Freedom (1965).
ALSO, watch the YouTube videos (on the assignment page) and review the
“Selma to Montgomery Timeline” (on the assignment page) excerpted
from my book, Wading in the Water, chapter 6. Your TA, Andrea, has found a link: Eyes
on the Prize #6 https://video-alexanderstreet-com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/watch/bridge-to-freedom-1965?context=channel:pbs

Note: Your classmate, Ana,has also provided this information: Ana Al Saad, Mon, Oct 18, 11:22 AM (22 hours ago). Good Morning Professor Lyles, I wanted to let you know that the Vimeo link for episode 6 of Eyes on the Prize no longer works because the documentary was taken off due to copyright issues. I was able to find it on HBO Max and through a streaming site called Alexander Street, which is available to all UIC students. If you include it on WordPress, students can click this
link
that takes them to the Books & Media section of the UIC Library website and from there click on Alexander Street where they can search up and
view the documentary. Best, Ana

Friday, November 4 is an ASYNCHRONOUS DAY
Second, watch the film “Selma” (2015) directed by Ava DuVernay.  Locate this film on your own: You are able to stream Selma by renting or purchasing on Google Play, Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, and iTunes. Former students have informed me that the film is available FREE here:” https://pluto.tv/en/on-demand/movies/selma-2014-1-1?utm_medium=textsearch&utm_source=google

After viewing both films, and the YouTube clips, and reading the Timeline on the assignment page, post a 1-2 page comparative essay analyzing the films, etc., as a comment on the assignment page. Your comparative analysis is part of your FINAL EXAM for PolS 359 and you will earn 0-10 points for the essay. Therefore, the maximum points available on the final exam in May will be only 90 possible points. DO NOT post your essay until immediately before class on Monday, November 7 between 8:55 and 9:05 am. Here is the assignment page: https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/law/bloody-sunday-and-selma-final-exam-essay-response/

Week 12 Monday Nov. 7 
Post your essay immediately before class on Monday, November 7, between 8:55 and 9:05 am. Here is the assignment page: https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/law/bloody-sunday-and-selma-final-exam-essay-response/
1966. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, [VRA 1965], Lyles, ch. 6.
1966.
Rational Basis Test and South Carolina v Katzenhach
1966. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663, [state-imposed poll tax], Lyles, ch. 6.
1966. Katzenbach v. Morgan 384 U.S. 641, [read and write English], Lyles, ch. 6.
1966. Bond v. Floyd [post-election, expel v. exclude] This case was cited by Trump’s defense team during impeachment #2
1966.  [optional]  Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, [media coverage on election day], Lexis Uni 1966. 
Attempted Murder of James Meredith [“to encourage voter registration”] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 66-67).
1968. [optional] Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni 
1947. [optional] Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni
1969. Allen v. State Board of Elections 393 U.S. 544, [preclearance/at-large elections] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 67-68). 
1969. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, [one person/one vote, mathematical equality] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 68).
1969. [optional] Hunter v. Erickson [the popular referendum] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 74-75).  Take 358
1969. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, [property ownership] Lexis Uni
1969. [optional] Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, [25,000 signatures for nomination] Lexis Uni
1969. [optional] Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, [media coverage and the “fairness doctrine] Lexis Uni
1969. [optional] Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, [media coverage and the “fairness doctrine] Lexis Uni
1969. [optional] Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters, 348 U.S. 364, [media coverage and the “fairness doctrine], Lexis Uni

WEEK 13 Monday Nov. 14
The Burger Court 1969-1986 

Money as Speech, pp. 153-156
Money As Speech: An Overview (1970s – 2010)  this link is also under PolS 354

1970. [optional] Oregon v. Mitchell [residency and voting age] (Lyles, ch. 7). 
1971. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 [single v. multimember districts, minority vote dilution] (Lyles, ch. 7, or Lexis Uni
1971. [optional] Jenness v. Forton, 403 U.S. 431, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni
1971. [optional] Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1, [one person, one vote, majoritarianism and super-majorities] Lexis Uni
1972. Dunn v. Blumstein 405 U.S. 330, [the newly resident] (Lyles, ch. 7).
1973. [optional] Mahan v. Howell 410 U.S. 315, [one person, one vote, reapportionment] (Lyles, ch. 7 and/or Lexis Uni).
1972. [optional] Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
1973. [optional] Marston v. Lewis 410 U.S. 670, [50-day residency] Lexis Uni
1973. Gaffney v. Cummings 412 U.S. 735, [one person, one vote, reapportionment] Lexis Uni [population]
1973. Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1 [pursuant to its voter mandate] (Lyles, ch. 7). This link is in PolS 358
1973. [optional] United States Civil Service Commission v. National Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni
1973. Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 410 U.S. 719, [lessee farmers v. landowners], Lexis Uni
1973. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, [minority vote dilution] Lyles, chapter 7 or Lexis Uni, see also Gardner, p 224.
1974. [optional] Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, [disenfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes] Lexis Uni
1974. [optional] Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni
1975. City of Richmond, Virginia v. United States [annexation] (Lyles, ch. 7).
1976. [optional] Beer v. United States 425 U.S. 130, [preclearance, reapportionment, retrogression] (Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni).
1976. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, [campaign finance, basic principles, government financing of campaigns, reporting and disclosure] Lexis Uni and (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [Money as speech]
1976. [optional] Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni
1977. [optional] United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, [“racial gerrymander” and minority vote dilution] (Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni).
1977. [optional] Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action at the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, [majoritarianism] Lexis Uni
1978. [optional] Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa 439 U.S. 60, [one man, one vote], Lexis Uni
1978. [optional] Dougherty County Board of Education v. White [preclearance]
1978. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) [Lexis Uni] (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [Money as speech]
1984. [optional] First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures] Lexis Uni
1980. City of Rome v. United States (Lyles, ch. 7).
1980. “Constitutional Constraints on Minority Vote Dilution,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), pp. 267-268. 
[optional] Griggs v. Duke Power Co 1971  [as discussed in class]  IMPACT/EFFECT
[optional] Washington v. Davis 1976  [as discussed in class] INTENT
1980. City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 [discriminatory intent, minority vote dilution] (Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni).
1981. [optional] 450 U.S. 107, Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette [associational rights of parties], Lexis Uni
1982. [optional] Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, [political speech, defamation and false statements] Lexis Uni
1982. [optional] Rogers v. Lodge [at-large elections], Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni
1982. [optional] Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, [anonymous speech], Lexis Uni
1982. The 1982 Amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Lyles, ch. 7), Lexis Uni.
1983. Karcher v. Daggett 1983 [“precise mathematical equality”] (Lyles, ch. 7), Lexis Uni. [population]
1983. [optional] Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
1985 Federal Election Commission v. NCPAC (1985) [Lexis Uni](Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [Money as speech]
1986. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, [drawing majority–minority districts and minority vote dilution] (Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni).
1986. Davis v. Bandemer [partisan political gerrymandering], Lyles, ch. 7 or Lexis Uni.
1986. [optional] Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, [associational rights of parties], Lexis Uni

The Rehnquist Court: 1986-2005
1987. Thurgood Marshall’s Remarks at the Annual Seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association in Maui, Hawaii (May 6, 1987) (Lyles, ch. 8).
1989. [optional] EU v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee 489 U.S. 214, [associational rights], Lexis Uni
1990 Georgia State Board of Elections v. Brooks [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1990. [optional] Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni
1990. [optional] Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures] Lexis Uni
1991. Chisom v. Romer 501 U.S. 380, [judicial elections, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).
1991. [optional] Houston Lawyers Association v. Texas Attorney General [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1992. Presley v. Etowah County Commission [redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8) and 1992. Mack v. Russell County Commission [preclearance/redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1992. [optional] Burdick v. Takushi [write-in voting, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
1992. [optional] Burson v. Freeman, 505 U.S. 191, [at the polls, campaign-free zones around polling places], Lexis Uni
1993. Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. 630, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1994. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).
1994. [optional] Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 [minority vote dilution], Lexis Uni
1995. Miller v. Johnson 515 U.S. 900, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1995. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, [term limits], Lexis Uni  See also, PolS 353
1995. [optional] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, [anonymous campaign literature], Lexis Uni
1995 [optional] United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni
1996. Shaw v. Hunt. [majority-minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1996. Bush v. Vera [majority–minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1996. [optional] Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Colorado Republican I), 518 U.S. 604, [campaign finance, coordinated expenditures], Lexis Uni
1997. [optional] Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, [multiple-party or “fusion” candidates, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni
1997. [optional] Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 7, [remedying errors in elections, re-votes and the uniform date for federal elections], Lexis Uni
1998 [optional] Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, [media coverage, debate exclusion], Lexis Uni
1998 [optional] Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni
1999. [optional] Lopez v. Monterey County, 552 U.S. 196, [preclearance], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni
1999. Hunt v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations], (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1998 [optional] Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni
2000. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, [counting votes, resolving disputed presidential election contests], Lyles, ch. 8 and/or Lexis Uni.
2000. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board 528 U.S. 320 [preclearance/retrogression], Lexis Uni
2000. [optional] California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, [associational rights of parties and the “blanket primary], Lexis Uni
2000. [optional] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni
2001. Easley v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations] (Lyles, ch. 8).
2001. [optional] Cook v. Gralike 531 U.S. 510, [term limits, state] Lexis Uni
2001. NAACP v. Harris [purging the rolls] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1947. [optional] Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni
2002. [optional] Republican party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni
2003. [optional] Georgia v. Ashcroft 539 U.S. 461, [preclearance/retrogression],Lyles, ch. 8, or Lexis Uni.
2003 McConnell v. FEC (2003)  (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)2010. [Money as speech] 540 U.S. 93, [campaign finance, limits on expenditures, reporting and disclosure] Lexis Uni
2004. Vieth v. Jubelirer 541 U.S. 267 [political questions/political gerrymandering] (Lyles, ch. 8/ Lexis Uni).
2004. [optional] Cox v. Larios 542 U.S. 947, [one person/one vote, mathematical equality], Lexis Uni

The Roberts Court 2005-present
2005. [optional] Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, [independents and associational rights of parties], Lexis Uni
2006. [optional] League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, [majority-minority districting], Lexis Uni
2006. “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.
2006 [optional] Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, [The People’s Choice Initiative of 2004], Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, [at the polls, avoiding election fraud] (Lyles, ch. 9) and/or Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
2009. [optional] Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act], Lexis Uni
2009. [optional] Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder [preclearance revisited, Section 5, and bailout]

*TO BE DISCUSSED NEXT WEEK 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

2011 [optional] Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 [anonymous speech, petition signature disclosure and referendums], Lexis Uni 2011. [Money as speech]
[optional] Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, [campaign finance, government financing of campaigns] Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2012  [optional] United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, [political speech, defamation and false statements], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]

2013. The Sentencing Project, Losing the Right to Vote

2013. Shelby v. Holder 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2612, [preclearance revisited, Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965], Lyles, Chapter 9 or Lexis Uni

2014 McCutheon v FCC 2014  (Required only to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [campaign finance, limits on contributions], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2015. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission [referendums, initiatives, and independent redistricting commissions] [Legislatures vs. Commissions]
2015 [optional] Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 557 U.S. ___; 135 S. Ct. 1656, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni
2015 [optional] Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895, 575 U.S. ____, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015)
2015. NPR Broadcast, Fresh Air, Monday August 10, 2015 The Voting Rights Act 1965 to 2013

WEEK 14 Monday Nov. 21
Find an article on Felony Disenfranchisement, bring it to class and be prepared to discuss it in class today.

2015 “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.
2016. Evenwel v. Abbott, Lexis Uni, [population]
2017. “How Mass Incarceration Led Directly to Trump’s Win,” February 15, 2017, Vanity Fair 1985. 
[optional] Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, [disenfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes], Lexis Uni.
2017 [optional] Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1455

 

REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IN CLASS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23 IS AN ASYNCHRONOUS DAY.  WE WILL NOT MEET ON BLACKBOARD COLLABORATE FOR CLASS AT 9 A.M. INSTEAD, YOU WILL TRAVEL TO NYU LAW SCHOOL AND ATTEND THE PANEL BELOW.

Wednesday November 23 is an ASYNCHRONOUS DAY
2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures, reporting and disclosure]. Everyone is required to view the NYU Law School panel on the Citizens United v. FEC case. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Aqp2s27kXg]. Floyd Abrams, who argued the Citizens United case before the Supreme Court is scheduled to appear on the panel. Everyone is required to post a comment about the PANEL (not just the case) on the page, and, there will be quiz on the panel when we get back to UIC next week.
See also: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/FORUM_CITIZENS_UNITED

Trump v Anderson 2024