Taking Voting Rights Seriously: Race and the Integrity of Democracy in America

This article demonstrates that secure and reliable elections are easily achievable in the United States - if those with economic and political power so desired. Given the costs implicit in continued clouds of legitimacy over those currently governing this nation, one would therefore expect strong and decisive action to remedy once and for all race-based electioneering games and faulty voting machinery. The thesis of this article, however, is that this is very unlikely to occur; rather, those with power seem to be exercising an option to use race instrumentally to foil the democratic process and to enhance their electoral interests. Of course, if this thesis is correct, not only does it mean that prospectively no effective voting reform will occur, it also means that there is additional reason to question the legitimacy of these past, tainted elections. Part I of this article will review the problems with the elections of 2000 and 2004 with a view towards highlighting the primary barriers inherent in the current matrix of election regulation and law that prevents the will of the people from being manifest in election outcomes. Part II will review the major reform - HAVA - that has occurred thus far as a result of these controversies, and will show that this reform is not effective to address the root problems plaguing our democracy. Part EI of this article seeks to explain why effective reform did not occur in the wake of the elections of 2000 and 2004, through the use of interest convergence theory and its emphasis on the power of race in America to serve the needs of those with political and economic power. The article concludes that real election reform is not likely to occur because elites find it in their interest to retain the status quo - including the ability to use race instrumentally to manipulate elections. Simply put, controversy-free elections are readily attainable; the fact that powerful segments of our leaders do not secure controversy-free elections in what is supposed to be the world\u27s democratic leader suggests they do not want legitimate elections

Community Engagement and Social Activism in Legal

Organick encourages new law faculty to reach out to the clinicians on your faculty for support, potential collaborative projects. This benefits students, and lays the foundation for meaningful friendships

Tribal Law and Best Practices in Legal Education: Creating a New Path for the Study of Tribal Law

In Part I of this article, I explore the importance of introducing law students to tribal law and the culture of other local legal systems early and often. I assert that when the legal academy ignores the role that culture plays in the formation and understanding of our own legal system and the legal systems of other communities, we are ignoring the most basic and core aspects of society. By disregarding the role culture plays in legal systems, we are doing a disservice not only to our students, but also ultimately to the legal community and our clients. By failing to give our full attention to this critical aspect of our student\u27s education, we are also failing to adhere to principles espoused in the Best Practices of Legal Education, which is to adequately prepare our students for the practice of law. Part II will identify key components of Best Practices that establish a framework for teaching culture in general and for teaching it alongside tribal law in particular. This section pays particular attention to establishing an institutional affirmation of the importance that culture plays in legal education; setting institutional goals for a program of instruction that includes teaching culture across the curriculum beginning in the first year of law school and throughout the entire course of legal study; and establishing an environment that supports faculty development for delivering instruction in teaching culture as part of course curriculum. Part III identifies a few teaching techniques they may be helpful to those interested in trying cultural education. These suggestions are tailored to the type of course being taught. I discuss whether particular techniques could be included in the doctrinal, survey/seminar, or clinical courses. Part III also provides examples from my own teaching manual, which I use to illustrate how we can customize existing exercises and ideas to integrate them into the curriculum

Listening to Indigenous Voices: What the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Means for U.S. Tribes

Part I of this article will provide a historical context for the Declaration by surveying the international recognition of the concept of Indigenous rights that led to the adoption of the Declaration. Part II will discuss the positions taken by each no-vote state and the reasoning employed by these states in support of those positions. Part Ill will focus on how U.S. Tribes might turn the Declaration into a living document in spite of the United States\u27 continued resistance to do so

Creating a Tribal Law Practice Clinic in Kansas: Carving the Peg to Fit the Hole

This article will focus on three main challenges in creating a tribal court practice clinic. The first part will address creating a tribal court focus within an existing clinic curriculum. The second part will address the process of designing a curriculum for the TCPC that includes incorporating the basic doctrinal foundations of federal Indian law, as well as the clinical skills necessary to practice in a tribal court setting. The third part will offer some concluding thoughts on my long-term plans and dreams for TCPC

Non-Apology in the Age of Apology

After more than two decades winding its way through a variety of United Nations (UN) mechanisms, in September 2007 the world’s indigenous peoples welcomed the news that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter the Declaration) was at last approved by the vast majority of nation-states.2 The four settler3 states that opposed the Declaration initially (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have each in turn voiced their ultimate approval of the declaration and have issued statements in support to their indigenous citizens.In spite of the fact that these statements expressed a measure of regret for past wrongs committed, not one of those endorsements embodied a formal apology. Now that the Declaration has entered its eleventh year, many continue to question to what extent these endorsements have meaningfully advanced reconciliation for indigenous peoples and whether these endorsements were authentic in their stated desire to do more than just acknowledge the aspirations contained in the Declaration.This comment will examine the framework for political apologies in general and then consider the endorsements of the Declaration by the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in light of contemporary apology theory. The article will then examine affirmative actions taken by those states following their endorsements in order to advance the claims of indigenous peoples and look at whether these actions have fallen short in providing meaningful redress for centuries of past wrongs

Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas

This is the published version