Concurring (Thomas)
Dissenting (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan)
Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board (2008)
Relevant Case Facts:
In 2005, the Indiana legislature enacted the “Voter ID Law” requiring citizens to present
government-issued photo identification at voting polls in order to prevent voter fraud. The law
did not apply to registering to vote or absentee votes submitted by mail, and there were
exceptions made for residents of state licensed facilities such as nursing homes. Voters who
forgot their ID on Election Day, or voters who had religious objections to being photographed
could cast a provisional vote that would be counted if the voter brought their ID to the county
clerk’s office within 10 days. The state DMV offered free photo identification cards to those who
did not already possess proper identification. A group representing the interests of the poor and
minorities, as well as the Indiana and Marion County Democratic Party, challenged the law
arguing that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by substantially burdening the right to vote
and arbitrarily disenfranchising voters who could not obtain ID cards easily. The district court
and courts of appeals ruled for the state, concluding the benefit offset the burden to voters.
Legal Question: Does a law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo identification
in order to vote arbitrarily disenfranchise voters and thus violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Concurring in Judgment (Scalia):
Dissenting (Souter):
Dissenting (Breyer):
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
558 U.S. ______ (2010)
Relevant Case Facts:
In January 2008, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation that receives some funding from for-
profit organizations, released Hillary: The Movie, a documentary film critical of then-senator
Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The film depicted
Clinton as unfit for the presidency. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for
violating campaign finance laws, Citizens United initiated legal action against the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) arguing that (1) section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
(BCRA), which prohibits corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to
finance independent electioneering communications, is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary.
Issue: May the government regulate corporate political speech through suppression and through
disclaimer and disclosure requirements?
Reasoning:
Scalia and Alito concurring in part:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part:
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
Relevant Case Facts: The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended by the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), limits campaign contributions to candidates
for federal office and contributions to noncandidate political organizations in two ways. First, the
law’s base limits restrict the amount any individual can give to any particular candidate or
organization. Second, the law’s aggregate limits impose a ceiling on the total amount an
individual may give to all candidates or organizations in any two-year election cycle. The
aggregate contribution limits, therefore, have the effect of restricting the number of candidates or
organizations a donor may support.
Legal Question: Does the First Amendment protect the right to give money to political
campaigns?
Reasoning:
Concurring in Judgment (Thomas)
Dissenting (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan)
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Relevant Case Facts: Population shifts had caused the Alabama state legislature to become
severely malapportioned. Rural districts with small populations had as much representation as
urban districts with large populations, thus diluting the vote of the urban voters. For example,
rural Lowndes County, population 15,000, and urban Jefferson County, population 600,000, both
got one state senator. Anticipating legal action in the wake of Baker v. Carr, the state offered two
reapportionment plans, but a district court rejected them. That decision was appealed to the
Supreme Court The suit was one of six state reapportionment challenges heard by the Court at
the same time.
Legal Question: Is Alabama’s apportionment arrangement a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Dissent (Harlan):
Miller v. Johnson (1995)
Relevant Case Facts: In an attempt to satisfy the requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Georgia
redistricted in 1992 to create three majority black districts. One of those districts, the Eleventh,
ran diagonally across the state, in order to include both urban areas and sparsely populated rural
areas that were overwhelmingly black. The district covered almost 7,000 square miles. In both
1992 and 1994, it selected Cynthia McKinney, a black Democrat, to the House. In 1994, five
white voters from the Eleventh District, including Davida Johnson, sued Democratic governor
Zell Miller, challenging the redistricting on equal protection grounds, claiming it was designed
on the basis of race.
Legal Question: Is Georgia’s redistricting plan in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Dissent (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter):
