New (Short) Article: Ezra Rosser, Creating Space for Reservation Growth, 9 Florida International University Law Review 351 (2014) (Invited Symposium Article reviewing Robert J. Miller, Reservation ‘Capitalism’: Economic Development in Indian Country (2012)).
New Article: Carmen G. Gonzalez, World Poverty and Food Insecurity, 3 Penn. State Journal of Law and International Affairs No. 2 (2014). Abstract below:
Drawing upon the insights of philosopher Thomas Pogge, the article emphasizes the structural inequities in the global economic order that produce food insecurity. The article argues that chronic undernourishment is a function of international political and economic arrangements that systematically benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It concludes with several legal and policy reforms that the United States and the European Union can adopt to reduce the burdens that our societies place on the world’s most vulnerable populations.
New Article: Wendy A. Bach, Flourishing Rights, forthcoming Mich. L. Rev. Abstract below:
Flourishing Rights reviews Clare Huntington’s Failure to Flourish: How Law Undermines Family Relationships, recently published by the Oxford University Press. This review explores the way that specific issues at the heart of the relationship between poor families and the state affects Huntington’s thesis and proposals. The review largely applauds the book but concludes that a robust form of rights protection, when combined with the impressive policy arguments Huntington marshals, might actually make real the audacious idea that everyone has a right to flourish.
New Article: Maritza Reyes, Opening Borders: African Americans and Latinos Through the Lens of Immigration, 17 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 1 (2014). Abstract below:
African-American and Latino voter turnout during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections hit record numbers. Polls show that the immigration debate influenced Latino voter turnout and preference. Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s voiced support of comprehensive immigration reform strengthened his lead among Latino voters in 2008 and, once in office, his executive policy of granting temporary protection to DREAMers solidified his lead among Latino voters in 2012. Both elections showed the power that minority groups can exert when they vote in support of the same candidate. If the demographic changes continue as currently estimated, African Americans and Latinos will contribute in large part to the making of the United States into a “majority-minority” nation and will play an increasingly important role in local and national politics. Therefore, it is important for Americans to become more inclusive of all minority groups and to expand discussions of race relations beyond the Black-White paradigm and discussions about immigration beyond the Latino-White paradigm.
As the polarized reactions to the Zimmerman verdict showed, there is much work to be done as the people of the United States continue the project of forming “a more perfect Union.” Honest assessments of how individuals and groups interact are crucial to opening borders and encouraging exchanges beyond socially constructed boundaries, like race, and racialized politics. African Americans and Latinos often compete with each other for political representation and other resources. In addition, the political consideration of immigration law and policy includes a racial dimension that is often camouflaged, but denial and silence about this reality do nothing to move the country forward. Therefore, immigration provides an opportunity to examine race relations and the potential for inter-group coalitions between African Americans and Latinos. For this reason, this Article also explores, through the lens of immigration, the role that race may play in the attitudes of African Americans and Latinos toward each other. One of the goals of this Article is to spark a candid dialogue that promotes a better understanding of race and its impact on interactions between African Americans and Latinos in the United States.
UC-Davis is hosting a “Poverty and Place Conference” and has posted many of the papers from that conference here, or see below:
Driving Mobility: The Role of Automobiles and Public Transit
Presented by Evelyn Blumenberg, University of California, Los Angeles
Discussed by Deb Niemeier, University of California, Davis
Download Professor Blumenberg’s Paper
‘Just Leave Me Alone’: Social Isolation and Civic Disengagement for the Small-City Poor
Presented by Jennifer Sherman, Washington State University
Discussed by Sheryl-Ann Simpson, University of California, Davis
Download Professor Sherman’s Paper
Middle Class Poverty Politics: Making Place, Making People
Presented by Victoria Lawson & Sarah Elwood, University of Washington
Discussed by Adrienne Hosek, University of California, Davis
Download Professors Elwood and Lawson’s Paper
Placing Environmental Justice and Opportunity in Rural California
Presented by Jonathan K. London, University of California, Davis
Discussed by Tracey Farrigan, United States Department of Agriculture
Download Professor London’s Paper
Springboard or Trap? Governance and Opportunity in Diverse Suburbs
Presented by Margaret Weir, University of California, Berkeley
Discussed by Michelle Wilde Anderson, Stanford University School of Law
Download Professor Weir’s Paper
New Article: Timothy M. Mulvaney, Progressive Property Moving Forward, 5 Calif. L. Rev. Cir. 349 (2014). Abstract below:
In response to Ezra Rosser’s article, The Ambition and Transformative Potential of Progressive Property, 101 Calif. L. Rev. 107 (2013), Timothy Mulvaney expresses more confidence than does Rosser in property’s potential to serve a role in furthering a progressive society. If property is to serve in this role, however, Mulvaney suggests it is important to redesign and reinterpret property in accordance with three themes-transparency about property rules’ value-dependence,humility about the reach of human knowledge and the mutability of our normative positions, and a concern for the socioeconomic identities of those affected by resource disputes-that underlie a broader set of writings than Rosser considers within the contours of “progressive property scholarship” and on which he offers some very preliminary impressions.
-Editor’s Note: Not only do I think Tim Mulvaney’s article is very fair in the critiques it gives of my article, but it addresses an issue that is very important and that I continue to wrestle with (my next article focuses on it); namely, is property a good place to look for answers to poverty and inequality. So a big thanks to Tim for this response article!
New Article: Pamela Cardullo Ortiz, How a Civil Right to Counsel Can Help Dismantle Concentrated Poverty in America’s Inner Cities, 25 Stan.L.& Pol’y Rev. 163 (2014). Abstract below:
This Article addresses the challenge of concentrated poverty and suggests that the creation of a civil right to counsel can be a powerful opportunity to enhance low-income inner-city neighborhoods, to empower those who live there, and to create new opportunities, new choices, and socio-economic mobility in our cities. It will explore several strategies that have been proposed for improving neighborhood conditions and promoting mobility and discuss the potential legal strategies that might be employed by poor residents in advancing these strategies.
New Article: Tomiko Brown-Nagin, The Civil Rights Canon: Above and Below, 123 Yale L.J. 2574 (2014). Abstract below:
This essay builds on the constitutional history of the civil rights movement from below to complement and complicate the canon identified in We the People: The Civil Rights Revolution. Like Professor Ackerman’s work, this essay embraces the concept of popular sovereignty: it is a powerful resource for social movements seeking constitutional change. However, this essay expands the “who” and the “what” of the civil rights era’s constitutional vision beyond the public figures and antidiscrimination statutes to which We the People attaches great significance. Ackerman’s civil rights canon emanates from officialdom—Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen—and a single representative of the civil rights movement, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Antidiscrimination statutes—the Civil Rights Act (CRA), Voting Rights Act (VRA), and Fair Housing Act (FHA)—comprise the canon. This essay argues that A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Ella Baker, and the new abolitionists of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)—representatives of the grassroots and proponents of an economic vision of equality—also were architects of a civil-rights-era canon.
These avant-garde figures, often critics of the Democratic Party, pushed Dr. King and federal officials to pursue economic citizenship as a component of a new constitutional vision of equality. In the Equal Opportunity Act (EOA), the heart of the War on Poverty, this element of the movement partly realized some of its economic goals. These activists contributed to change during the civil rights era in the absence of formal power in legislatures and courts, and pressed states and local people to implement (or ratify) locally relevant elements of the national civil rights agenda. Because this activism was tethered to local communities and local concerns, these activists personify popular sovereignty in its truest meaning.
The exclusion of such mobilized and organized citizens as agents of political influence—as elemental to the “we” in “We the People”— reveals two conceptual limitations in We the People’s canonization project. First, it denies voice, agenda-setting power, and historical significance to the same classes of persons denied full citizenship and left outside of the corridors of power when the drafting and ratification of the Constitution originally took place. Second, We the People’s imperfect version of history results in an inaccurate description of civil rights constitutionalism. It conceives “higher lawmaking” as the byproduct of power brokers who leverage institutional power and achieve consensus about the meaning of equality through assent by electoral majorities. A more descriptively accurate and normatively desirable account of civil rights constitutionalism would concede historical and ongoing contest over the meaning of equality.