Perez Raises Awareness for Voting Rights at William & Mary

williamandmary — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:39:31 -0400

On March 18, Myrna Perez of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice traveled to William & Mary and spoke to the ACS student chapter in order to raise awareness about an array of voting rights issues facing the country in this election year. Ms. Perez, a voting rights specialist for the Center, brought a familiarity with the subject that could only be acquired by her work in the trenches, sharing illustrative anecdotes gleaned from litigation across the country. Ms. Perez's talk had many highlights:

1. Felon Disenfranchisement: Perez explained the scope and variety of disenfranchisement across the country and discussed Virginia's especially draconian disenfranchisement laws. By offering a nationwide survery, however, Perez illustrated that there are many ways for states to implement some form of disenfranchisement without requiring a complete prohibition of future electoral participation. Chapter students seemed especially interested in this topic, questioning Perez on the possibility of federal overrides at least for the purposes of federal elections.

William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law

Paul Smith and John Yoo discuss the Roberts Court

williamandmary — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:40:01 -0400

On Friday September 15, students packed into room 120, filling the classroom to capacity, to hear a discussion between Paul Smith, a noted lawyer, Supreme Court advocate and counsel in Lawrence v. Texas, and John Yoo, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who authored the Bush administration’s torture memo while working for the Department of Justice.

After brief introductions, Smith began the talk by explaining how the change from the Rehnquist Court to the Roberts Court was not a major change; rather the change from O’Conner to Alito would make the most significant difference and signify where the court will head in the future. Before, Smith stated, an advocate trying to convince the court knew there was always two justices that might contribute the necessary fifth vote: O’Conner and Kennedy. That number is now one, and the question about where Kennedy will fall on critical cases now becomes a concern to any lawyer hoping to win a case on a major issue.

Turning to the topic of progressive views on the law, Smith explained that the major factor always centered upon individual rights, with the major point of difference being how aggressively to read and enforce the rights articulated in the Constitution. This encompasses ideas such as the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and individual rights, as well as the use of substantive due process to expand and articulate individual rights. Substantive due process, said Smith, is law not based on the text of the Constitution; rather, substantive rights are read into the constitution.

William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law

William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law

Perez Raises Awareness for Voting Rights at William & Mary

Paul Smith and John Yoo discuss the Roberts Court