top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureIsaac Cui

I’ve clearly lost my touch on consistent blogging, but I am once again going to try getting back on track. I have a decent number of updates, so I thought I’d just devote this post to writing them.


July 26–Aug. 2: Starting this week, I ended up getting a lot of interviews for my dissertation. That made for a very intense writing process — I essentially had to finish the dissertation by August 21, but eight of my fifteen total interviews were conducted within two weeks of that day (the last interview was on August 19!). But I can’t complain; with maybe one exception, everyone was a pleasure to talk to, and I learned a lot from all of them regardless.


The major event from this week, though, was that I went to Northern Ireland (or the North of Ireland, depending on your persuasion). There’s a long and complicated history to this part of the world, one that I don’t feel like I understand all that well. But in essence, Northern Ireland (one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, alongside England, Wales, and Scotland) is the descendant of a British colonizing effort. (You’ll notice that the Plantation of Ulster maps fairly closely onto the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border.) Today, we talk about the divide in Ireland in terms of religion: Catholics against Protestants. But the divide is really a more general sectarian difference, mapping along Irish (nationalist) versus British (loyalist) political identities, and historical class and power differentials. Plus, there are more random but salient cultural divides (it is said, for example, that Protestants put their toasters in their cupboards). The division even goes to the language: Irish nationalists who don’t accept the legitimacy of Northern Ireland would refer to it as the North of Ireland; the town of Derry (what the Catholics call it) is known by the Protestants as Londonderry (the train stop was described as “Derry/Londonderry”). It’s said that if you want to know someone’s background, you’d ask them whether they are “a Billy, a Dan, or an old tin can.” The first is a reference to William of Orange, a Protestant king of the UK; the second is a reference to Catholics, perhaps to Daniel O’Connell, a nineteenth-century Irish leader; and the third is a slur for being Jewish. When we first got to Belfast, among the first things we saw was a mural dedicated to William of Orange.


I went to Northern Ireland with a Pomona friend, and we visited from Saturday to Monday (July 31–Aug. 2). After arriving early Saturday morning, we hopped on a train and went to Derry. I wanted to see, of course, the setting of Derry Girls.


Me as a Derry Girl (RIP Clare, who is cut out)

But Derry really is a fascinating place. It was an integral setting of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement, with non-violent protests as well as the creation of an ostensibly autonomous area (“Free Derry”) controlled by armed Irish Nationalists in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to the UK’s Bloody Sunday (1972), a massacre of Irish Catholics in the Bogside community of Derry.


As the Catholics tell the story (and as seems true based on what I know), Catholics were discriminated against in multiple systematic ways, especially through political gerrymandering and inequitable access to housing and government jobs. Unrest and eventual rioting led eventually to effective military occupation throughout Northern Ireland by the British Army and a constant state of political violence — the Troubles. The Troubles eventually ended with the Good Friday Agreement, which created special political institutions for sharing power in a deeply divided society and entered into effect in 1999. And there is much commemoration of the peace process.



But old habits die hard, and you see that with Northern Ireland. The divide is still salient — we saw that especially once we were exploring Belfast. A Marshall friend who studies in Belfast and specializes in conflict studies gave us what she called the “political tour” of Belfast, including going through different working-class parts of Belfast. In the Irish nationalist neighborhood of the Falls, you see all kinds of anti-colonial murals (it’s amazing how many depictions there are of Latin American communist revolutionaries, as well as American civil rights icons — I took a selfie with John Lewis), memorials about Irish heritage, such as Irish-language exclusive pubs presumably meant to preserve fluency in the language, and Irish flags.



In Protestant parts of town (we went to the Shankill, just adjacent to the Falls), you see murals celebrating Queen Elizabeth (the most pro-royal displays I’ve seen in the UK were in Belfast), banners likening the Irish Republican Army (one of the Irish nationalist paramilitary groups) to ISIS, and Union Jacks everywhere. One funny manifestation of the division: because the Irish nationalists see themselves as part of a global anti-colonial struggle, they often fly Palestinian flags. As a result, you’ll also see a surprising number of Israeli flags among the Protestant loyalists.



Another concrete manifestation of the divide: When we tried to get to the Shankill, we were blocked by one of the so-called peace walls — barriers built by the British to physically separate communities and make it harder to engage in violence — whose gates were closed due to rioting that happened in the spring. (Lyra McKee, a Northern Irish journalist, was killed in 2019 during a riot in Derry.)



The proximate cause of renewed tension is Brexit — the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the EU, but that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Part of the Good Friday Agreement entailed the removal of any boundary between Northern Ireland and Ireland; when we were in Derry, just three miles from Ireland, we could’ve walked across into Ireland without anyone checking our passports. Everyone on the island of Ireland wants to keep that state of affairs because to recreate a border would almost certainly spur greater sectarian violence. But Brexit entailed leaving a free trade area, implying that goods that enter the EU from the UK (or vice versa) need to now be inspected for equivalence of regulation, as well as the cessation of free movement between citizens of EU countries and the UK.


Thus the massive headache of Britain’s Northern Ireland protocol: either you create a sea border between most of the UK (Scotland, England, and Wales) and Northern Ireland, or you create a land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (unacceptable to anyone). The former is essentially what is happening, but that angers the Protestant unionists in Northern Ireland, who see themselves as British and thus evince a “siege mentality,” a fear of losing power especially in light of a growing Catholic population. (Demographically, Protestants are in decline compared to Catholics simply due to birth rates. But with the elevation of Catholics’ socioeconomic status, in part traced to the Good Friday Agreement, Protestants are also simply losing out in terms of relative power. You can probably see the parallels with the United States: as White people become increasingly less dominant both demographically and socioeconomically, they are drawn toward backlash politics manifesting in anxiety about immigration leading to conservative racial politics. For a good book on this, see Abrajano and Hajnal’s White Backlash (2015), a powerful study of how the imagination of (Hispanic) immigration shapes White Americans’ politics.)


Beyond seeing the artifacts of politics — the murals, the cannons, the flags — I also felt so fortunate to get to meet people in Northern Ireland, who were all so fascinating to talk with. When we first met my Marshall friend, she took us to a party at the food bank she volunteers at. There, I met a brilliant barrister (a lawyer, but in the UK, they divide between lawyers who go into court (barristers) and lawyers who handle transactions, contracts, and so on (solicitors)) who gave me her perspective about Irish nationalism and Brexit, and we even debated the importance of a written constitution (who would’ve guessed I would end up having similar conversations in my old college classrooms as at a west Belfast food bank party?). The man who hosted our AirBnB was an Englishman who was in the British Army during the Troubles, after which he joined the police (the Police Service of Northern Ireland, descended from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which in turn was connected to British military occupation during the Troubles). He gave us some truly incredible, and terrifying, stories about bombings and living in a state of constant fear.


I came away from Northern Ireland feeling extremely moved: the people we spoke with were so kind and willing to speak with us, but there was also so much pain and suffering due to generations of violence. You get a new perspective on how politics shapes people’s lives when you walk the streets of such a divided society, I think.


Something I was glad we did while in Derry was we visited the grave of John Hume, a long-time leader of the SDLP (one of the non-militant Irish nationalist parties), who played a key role in the peace process.



I should also note that though I have focused a lot on the politics, we certainly also had more light-hearted moments in Northern Ireland.



Aug. 3–23: This was mostly a blur of dissertation researching and writing. My birthday was the day after we got back from Belfast (Aug. 3), so I spent it mostly doing chores and running errands, although I did stop to get a nice treat at Gail’s, a bakery. I went to a live performance of Romeo and Juliette (Aug. 11) in the Globe (which I believe is on the same site as the original and which is modeled after the theater from Shakespeare’s time, but that one burned down). I was pleasantly surprised: I never really enjoyed Shakespeare when I had to read his plays (with the exception, perhaps, of Macbeth), but it made a lot more sense when people were acting it out. I suspect the play also just makes more sense to me now that I’m a bit older; I think it’s easier, in essence, to laugh at teenage decisionmaking when one is no longer a teenager. I went with two other Marshalls, and I also saw them later that week (Aug. 13) for a going-away party, since they were in the cohort above me. A lot of those Marshalls will be in Boston, though, so I’m sure I will see them in the not-so-distant future.


The next day (Aug. 14), I got my second dose! It didn’t affect me as much as it did some of my peers (and my brother): I felt somewhat faint and lethargic, my arm hurt a lot, and I think I maybe got a mild fever that night. But I was still able to walk a lot that day and the next. I also spent some time with my LSE friend: we went to a bit of an odd museum (Aug. 12), as well as to a vegan cheese place that a Pomona friend had been asking me to go to (Aug. 18). I think vegan cheese is decent, but it just doesn’t live up to real cheese: the texture just isn’t the same.



Aug. 24–31: I turned in my dissertation (Aug. 24), which was a big source of relief, and then a Pomona friend came to visit (Aug. 24–26). He’s studying in Denmark on a Fulbright, but he decided to visit London. I tried to show him all the sights through extended walking tours: my phone records 40,279 steps on one day (Aug. 24) and then 36,001, which I was pretty happy with. We also got good food.



That Saturday (Aug. 28), I moved out to a new place out near Greenwich. The place is technically in Woolwich, the town next over from Greenwich proper, but it’s also in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. (London designations are confusing.) To be completely honest, my first impression of the place was not positive. The decision was very much an impulsive one: I was knee-deep in writing my dissertation, and I’m not too picky with where I live, so I just looked for a place within a given price range in Greenwich, which I heard was a nice part of London. The room itself is very nice, but I was a bit dispirited by two very quickly apparent facts: first, there is not much of a sense of community in the house (shared with four other guys), and second, it isn’t the cleanest place. I spent the afternoon on Aug. 29 cleaning the kitchen.


But to be honest, now that I’ve had more time to think about it, I do feel like I made a good decision. For one, I’ve now had the chance to meet everyone in the house, and they are all very interesting people. And, important to me, they’re different from my normal circles. One guy, I think in his mid-forties, is from Turkey (he left because, in his words, his country was “going to shit”); he doesn’t cook at all, but for some reason I always run into him in the kitchen while he’s heating up his food. We always have nice conversations — I get the sense he enjoys talking but is a bit lonely (not at all surprising for someone who moved to a country seemingly without many contacts in the middle of pandemic) as well as a bit self-conscious due to English being his second language (although I should note that his English is quite good). Another, I think in his mid-thirties, has a teenaged kid “based in Mexico,” in his words, and he likes to talk to me about the local area and his work (he seems to be a general handyman for a big company which contracts out those kinds of services to grocery stories, office-buildings, and so on). He grew up outside London, but he’s got a good sense of the city, and I enjoy hearing his stories and advice.


The other two guys are younger and talk less to me. One, a very English guy probably in his mid-twenties, is an accountant; he is a sporting man (I gather he plays football and rugby), enjoys poker, and is the only other person who meaningfully cooks. (Some of his cooking is quite intricate, although I do have to say I was a bit thrown off when he explained to me how he prefers cooking “Oriental food.” It’s a strange linguistic difference: in the U.S., that term has racist connotations, whereas in the UK, it’s quite common, although I would say somewhat suspect given how broad “the Orient” is and how many cuisines there are.) The fourth — the guy who lives on the first floor with me — is from Budapest, and works in hospitality. I haven’t gotten too much of a sense of him, except that he keeps mostly to himself. He did, however, judge me for making filter coffee (“it tastes like dirty water”).


All in all, though, I’m grateful to be around different people: people who are outside the academy; people who have families; people who are just trying to find a job that pays well, that they don’t hate, and that allows them to travel in their free time. It’s not that I necessarily think my roommates are more “normal” than my Marshall or LSE friends. But I do think they’re more grounded, and they feel more constrained. Most of the friends I’ve made in the UK feel, I think, that the world is their oyster; they feel empowered to do as they will, confident in their ability to thrive in their preferred path. I have much faith that they all can and will, since every one of those friends is brilliant and supremely competent. But far from everyone feels that kind of freedom and empowerment. And it puts things in perspective to know and see people’s outlooks when they don’t feel that kind of opportunity.


Something else about my new place did give me a lot of hope. I’ve been going for a lot of walks recently (in part as the weather has looked a bit better and in part to ease my mind), and I’ve gotten to see the local area more. At first, the location honestly freaked me out. Immediately next to my new place is an American-style mall: huge department stores, big shopping carts, massive parking lots. To add to the Americanness, there’s a large highway right next to where I live. I’m in London, but I’m definitely not in London anymore; more like Beaverton or Montclair, I would think. It’s given me new perspective about urban design — about how the design of roads really can make your cities walkable, or they can essentially require you to have a car.


But as I walked more, I also saw the neighborhoods filled with townhouses and kids playing on the street and adults gossiping with neighbors (a woman offered me a travel brochure to Beijing, and when I said no, she offered Tokyo). I found two massive parks, one of which I had seen before when my old flatmate and I walked down to Greenwich to see the Prime Meridian, and another of which is the site of an old, famous house (Charlton House). Greenwich, the stereotype goes, is where Central Londoners move out to when they have children; it’s the family suburb accompanying urban London life. And you really do see lots of young children playing football with their fathers, couples walking their dogs, elderly folk sitting on park benches catching up with their friends. It feels more community-oriented and personal than Central London. I love the feel of cities, and I do miss Central London, but I also am grateful to experience a different side of London.



Sept. 1–10: Despite moving out to Greenwich, I found myself going back into Central London very often. (Relatedly, my wallet has been hemorrhaging money, but c’est la vie.) The one exception is that my LSE friend came down to visit me once (Sept. 1), and we walked around Greenwich and planned future adventures. I got to hang out with a Marshall buddy (Sept. 2, 8, 10) who hadn’t been in London for most of the year (she went home early and stayed there until now), which was wonderful, and there were birthday festivities for another Marshall (Sept. 2, 3). A group of us Asian Marshalls met up, welcomed a new Marshall, and showed her around Central London, which was really wholesome (Sept. 10). I caught up with many old friends through the phone, I did another interview for my dissertation-turned-project (but I FAILED in that I didn’t record it properly, so all I have are my notes and an hour-long recording of us making facial expressions!), I met up with a Marshall who was previously based in Oxford but will now be in London (Sept. 10), and I got to see some of my friends from the Church (Sept. 3, 8), whom I’m hoping to keep up with despite having now left that church. Also, I went to the gym for the first time in a while (Sept. 7, 10), so my body is in lots of pain. One nice thing, though, is that the gym now has a punching bag, so I’ve been ending my workouts with boxing exercises.



* * * * *

Rose: My happiest moment was certainly being in Northern Ireland and meeting people there. I really enjoyed my last interview, because the interviewee was just fascinating. And hanging out with friends is always enriching for the soul. Also, both of my co-authored papers came out in this period (actually within a week of each other): the paper on human rights treaty monitoring, which my professor and I had worked on since late 2018, and the paper on the Office of Legal Counsel, from last summer’s work.


Bud: I’m going to Paris next week with my LSE friend! I’m not exactly sure what we’ll do, but I’ll certainly have many pictures. I’m also finally booked to get a British Library reader card, and I have started looking at archival stuff I want to read.


Thorn: I finally ripped the band-aid off by asking out a girl whom I had long harbored feelings for. She (very kindly) rejected the advance, which isn’t the greatest of feelings, but such is life. I am fortunate to have good friends who have talked through it all with me. And she handled the conversation very deftly.


Gratitude: I’ve spent a lot of time this last year walking in cemeteries (as you’ll know from my previous posts), and there’s a beautiful one right close to where I live. I’m grateful for the perspective and tranquility that comes from being in those spaces. And I’m reminded of my gratitude for all the wonderful moments I get to spend with people I cherish.


57 views0 comments
  • Writer's pictureIsaac Cui

The Supreme Court’s term ended a bit over three weeks ago, when the Court released its opinions in two important cases: Brnovich v. DNC and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. The latter is a case whose main importance moving forward is about the constitutionality of disclosure requirements for campaign-finance regulation — that is, when and for what purposes can a government compel the disclosure of a private charity’s donors? It’s an important question because the answer to that question likely portends further movement against campaign-finance regulation. Note by comparison that in Citizens United (that oft-attacked 2010 decision where the Court struck down federal campaign-finance limits on “independent expenditures” by corporations and unions), eight members of the Court upheld the regulation’s disclosure requirements. In contrast, Bonta potentially signals that there is a majority of the Court that is skeptical of disclosure requirements’ constitutionality.


The main case I want to write about is Brnovich, the Supreme Court’s decision interpreting the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to vote-denial claims (i.e., challenges to methods of or barriers to casting a ballot, such as voter ID laws or limits on mail-in balloting). I flagged this case a few months ago when the oral arguments took place, and the Supreme Court’s decision came down on July 1.


For some background, Brnovich interprets the provision of the VRA that bans any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” or “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement” of a citizen’s voting rights “on account of race or color.” The broader provision is known as Section 2 of the VRA, which is broken into two paragraphs. Paragraph (a) contains that aforementioned rule, and paragraph (b) clarifies (or further mystifies, depending on your point of view) this requirement by stating that that ban is violated if “based on the totality of circumstances,” a person bringing a lawsuit (e.g., the federal government or a private plaintiff) shows that relevant “political processes . . . are not equally open to participation” by people based on their race or color “in that” said people “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”


The question raised in Brnovich is whether two provisions of Arizona law (one that says that your ballot only counts if you cast it in the precinct in which you’re registered, and another that says you can’t have third parties other than family members submit your ballot for you) violate Section 2. The claim brought by the DNC was essentially that both of those provisions have disproportionate impacts on racial minorities — with the former, the trial court had found that few voters in total are affected by the out-of-precinct policy (around 1% of Hispanic, Black, and Native American voters have their ballots discarded, whereas 0.5% of white voters’ ballots are discarded by this policy) but that there was a significant disparity (i.e., minority voters were twice as likely to be affected); with the latter, the trial court had found reason to believe that racial minorities (specifically Native American voters who disproportionately lack access to reliable home mail service) were more likely to depend on third-party ballot casting. The key question for the Supreme Court: what are the legal standards for assessing whether this kind of evidence is sufficient to prove a violation of Section 2?


The Court makes a few moves in Brnovich that I find somewhat suspect. First, it sets out early on in its opinion that it “decline[s] . . . to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots” (12–13). Yet the upshot of its analysis is both a definition of the relevant statutory text (the majority writes, “the core” of Section 2 “is the requirement that voting be ‘equally open’” (15)) and an enumeration of “several important circumstances” that define “whether voting is ‘equally open’ and affords equal ‘opportunity’” in accordance with Section 2’s reference about “the totality of circumstances” (16). Lower courts will clearly read Brnovich to imply that they must assess each of the Court’s noted factors (the Court lists five of them), just as they have done with the Supreme Court’s other landmark Section 2 case (Gingles, which called on courts to look to nine so-called “Senate factors” for assessing whether in “the totality of circumstances” a violation of Section 2 has been shown). In other words, the Court I think dresses up what is effectively a legal test in the language of acting timidly, as if lower courts will not parse every word carefully (as they are duty-bound to given the vertical relationship between the Supreme Court and other federal courts).


Second, though the Court’s opinion begins early on with “a careful consideration of the text” of the statute (14), harkening to the ascendance of textualism as a method of statutory interpretation, the substantive legal test is largely atextual. That is, the Court lists five factors as relevant considerations in assessing a Section 2 claim that aren’t really moored to the language of Section 2. The considerations are:

  1. The “size of the burden imposed by a challenged voting rule,” such that “[m]ere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation” of Section 2 (16).

  2. The “degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice” in 1982, when the current text of Section 2 was made law (17).

  3. The “size of any disparities” caused by a voting rule (18).

  4. The “opportunities provided by a State’s entire system of voting” rather than focusing on specific rules in isolation.

  5. The “strength of the state interests served by a challenged voting rule,” so that a strongly justified state interest is less likely to violate Section 2 than as poorly justified one (19).

For some of these factors, maybe the text justifies them. For example, Section 2’s reference to demonstrating “based on the totality of circumstances . . . that the political processes leading to nomination or election . . . are not equally open to participation” perhaps justifies the fourth factor, because the language does seem to reference, in the Brnovich majority’s words, a “collective concept of a State’s ‘political processes’ and its ‘political process’ as a whole” (18). For what it’s worth, I think the reading is probably wrong in light of the fundamental rule of Section 2(a), which references any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right” to vote. That language, to me, suggests that Section 2 bans specific practices that result, in themselves, in vote denial or abridgement. The Court assumes that Section 2 “is violated only” when paragraph (b) is violated (i.e., that language about “the political processes” not being “equally open”) (14), and that provides the textualist hook for the argument that Section 2 claims should be assessed by reference to the entire electoral system. But that flips Section 2(b)’s syntactical logic, since Section 2(b) opens with “[a] violation of subsection (a) is established if” (emphasis added) various factors are met — Section 2(b) does not use the phrase “only if,” which is what the Brnovich majority assumes on page 14 of its opinion.


But that squabble is debatable, and I would be okay accepting the textualist argument in favor of factor four. The bigger problem is that many of these other factors have zero textualist hook. The first three factors have no justification in the text. Section 2 makes no reference to the “size of the burden” (factor one) precisely because it says that “[n]o” “standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement” of the right to vote. It doesn’t matter whether the disparities are large or small (factor three); Section 2 clearly only references whether the disparity exists. In that sense, I think the dissent’s argument (that what matters is whether there are statistically significant disparities) is much more persuasive and, indeed, textually grounded. The majority’s opinion laughs away the argument (“under the dissent’s interpretation of §2, any ‘statistically significant disparity’—wherever that is in the statute” (25)), but it follows from the conclusion that the statute bans actual disparities, since statistical significance is one of our best and broadly accepted ways for assessing whether a disparity is in fact real versus the artifact of random noise.


Beyond lacking a textualist hook, the factor that most troubles me is the second factor, which establishes the relevance of “standard practice” from 1982 for assessing whether a practice violates Section 2. From a textual perspective, of course, there is no meaningful argument here. The Court merely writes,

Because every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort, it is useful to have benchmarks with which the burdens imposed by a challenged rule can be compared. The burdens associated with the rules in widespread use when §2 was adopted are therefore useful in gauging whether the burdens imposed by a challenged rule are sufficient to prevent voting from being equally “open” or furnishing an equal “opportunity” to vote in the sense meant by §2. (17)

Note that despite the references to the statutory language, the textualism is an assertion rather than an interpretation. Nothing in the text suggests we ought to look to 1982 standards for assessing whether voting is “equally ‘open’” or whether all have an “equal ‘opportunity’ to vote in the sense meant” by Section 2. The only argument the Court makes — without citation to authority — is focused on congressional intent: “We doubt that Congress intended to uproot facially neutral time, place, and manner regulations that have a long pedigree or are in widespread use in the United States” (18). This argument seems quite weak to me: the VRA was clearly intended to be a transformative statute, and the 1982 rewrite of Section 2 was because Congress thought the Court has interpreted the language too narrowly in a case called Bolden dealing with vote-dilution claims. It is hard to believe that the purpose of the 1982 rewrite of Section 2 was to effectively immunize voting practices at the time.


It also doesn’t square with the VRA’s focus on equality, which is inherently a context-dependent standard. Because the VRA targets disparities in access and opportunity, any particular practice ought to be capable of violating the VRA based on surrounding environmental factors. To take a canonical example: a “literacy test,” which requires demonstrating one’s literacy to be eligible to vote, is theoretically perfectly open, but that equality is obviously contingent on equitable educational outcomes. Thus, in a theoretical moment in time, literacy rates could be equal among different races and thus literacy tests perhaps would not violate Section 2; but if those rates change, the tests could become a violation of Section 2 even if they originally weren’t. As such, Section 2 shouldn’t be thought of as categorically banning or allowing particular practices — instead, the focus needs to be on-the-ground implementation, facts, and empirical reality. (Note that this argument holds based on the theoretically perfectly implemented literacy test, where the test is not discriminatorily applied. In reality, of course, literacy tests were applied to Black Southerners and not to White ones. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act cleverly targeted specific practices, including literacy tests, in Section 4, but also included the broader prohibition on discriminatory practices in Section 2.)


Among the most damaging paragraphs in this opinion, then, is in the Court’s articulation of the third factor, concerning the size of disparities. The Court writes, “To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations, no matter how crafted, may well result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote” (18). This argument seems to me both question-raising (what does it mean for people to not have “an equal opportunity to vote” if showing that it is harder for some people to vote than others is not enough?) and ultimately contrary to the purpose of the VRA, which was to impose an affirmative obligation on states and localities to eliminate racial discrimination in voting (and indeed to actualize the Fifteenth Amendment’s constitutional promise of freedom from racial discrimination in voting). The natural implication of that obligation is that states and localities need to ensure equal participation despite those gaps in “employment, wealth, and education.” It flips the purpose of the VRA on its head to say that those gaps inevitably make neutral voting rules discriminatory and thus the VRA can’t outlaw those practices.


Brnovich, in short, will make it a lot harder for plaintiffs to win Section 2 cases in the vote-denial context. It does so in a way that I believe is neither textually warranted nor in accordance with the purpose of the VRA. Something to ask, though, is what the ultimate purpose of Brnovich was. It was litigation brought by the Democrats, and it was a case that many voting rights advocates thought was a weak vehicle for coming to the Supreme Court (largely because the facts were fairly weak — small disparities, poor expert testimony, and so on). When the Democrats lost in the district court with an opinion that was fairly balanced, why did they appeal? Why did they take the case further after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court? The Democrats got an en banc opinion vindicating their position, but that basically guaranteed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which everyone knew would be hostile to the claim and would reverse the Ninth Circuit. So why did they continue?


One answer, I think, is that the Democrats may not care much about the state of the law. Perhaps they really just wanted to generate political will or money through fundraising. They did get a lot of ugly headlines, think pieces, and a vigorous dissent from Justice Kagan, which will be cited much, I’m sure, in Democratic communications strategies around voting rights issues.


Will that strategy pan out, or will it end up shooting the Democrats in the foot as they’re now in a much weaker position to fight vote-denial efforts in court? (Not to mention, of course, the harm that such a strategy inflicts on the voting rights and civil rights groups who may not see their work as partisan!) I’m skeptical that this strategy is a good one.


But in the end, this is a statutory decision — one that Congress can (and should) fix. Congress has a long history in establishing civil rights. It spearheaded Reconstruction with a recalcitrant presidential administration, to the point of impeaching and almost successfully convicting the President. It passed the Second Reconstruction legislation, and its oversight was crucial for ensuring that legislation’s implementation — especially the Voting Rights Act. For all our contemporary disdain for Congress, it has been able to do great things for the cause of civil rights. Maybe it’ll do so again.


* * * * *

Roses:

* Last Sunday, I met up with a Marshall friend and an old college friend. We went to the Portobello Road Market, which is pretty far in West London (translation: very bougie part of London, near Kensington, where all the diplomats live). I got some good Iraqi food and a Turkish pastry. Because the Marshall friend works at a French bakery on a boat (isn’t that wild?), she also brought us a brioche loaf to share, which was heavenly.

Brioche Goodness

* On Wednesday, we had our “Marshall Leavers’ dinner,” which celebrates people who are finishing their time in the UK. It was a bit of a strange experience. It was essentially a cocktail reception packed with people I didn’t know (everyone had to get a negative covid test, so hopefully it wasn’t a superspreader event!), so not an environment I particularly like, albeit perhaps one I’ll have to get used to with law school and whatnot. The food was rather insubstantial while the wine was rather plentiful, but nothing crazy happened.

* That evening, we left for Glasgow for a trip. (Yes, we took an overnight bus from London, leaving at 11:30pm, to Glasgow, arriving at around 9am.) I didn’t really get any sleep on the bus, so I was exhausted by the time we got to Glasgow, but luckily I was able to get a short nap that morning. Glasgow was a surprisingly fun place — lots of beautiful art and good food. I tried haggis (meh), Irn Bru (a Scottish soda, sort of like orange Fanta with a hint of bubblegum — also meh), and various whiskys (note the spelling without an ‘e,’ which signifies the liquor made in Scotland, as opposed to ‘whiskey,’ from the U.S. or Ireland; also meh, to be honest, but I could clearly tell bad from higher-quality whisky). We also visited the Necropolis, the Jewish Archives (housed in a community center and synagogue), and I wandered the city a bit to see some of the beautiful sights (including tributes to local heroes and the Central Gurdwara Singh Sabha, a holy place for Sikhs). Also, the next Indiana Jones film was being filmed in Glasgow, so we caught a lot of 1960s-era New York City paraphernalia.


* The Glasgow trip was from Wednesday evening to Sunday morning, but I had to leave Saturday afternoon for the 10K I ran on Sunday morning. I was pretty nervous about the 10K because I hadn’t been running for around the last month — my knee had been hurting when I ran, so my only cardio was doing interval training on a stationary bike (not fun). I ended up running much faster for the 10K than I ever would’ve thought — my goal was to keep a 9-minute mile, and I ended up keeping a 7:37 mile. But it was painful, and I don’t think I could do that pace again — I think I was only able to do that because one of the runners we were with was very fast, and so I was mostly trying to avoid getting overtaken by her.



Buds:

* I’m finally starting to hear back more for interview requests, which is giving me slightly more hope that I will get enough people to talk to me to make a dissertation! I also had a nice call with my supervisor where he suggested I shouldn’t be so worried about getting sufficient responses, so maybe things will work out.


Thorn:

* My entire body is in pain after running that 10K. But no regrets — I’m happy that I finished the race and was able to raise a decent amount of money for an important cause.


Gratitude:

* I’m thankful for all the folks who donated to the Alzheimer’s Society fundraiser! If you want to donate, I think the portal is still open! I’m also thankful that my friend pulled me into doing the 10K, and for all four of the friends also running the race. Misery loves company, as they say.

76 views0 comments
  • Writer's pictureIsaac Cui

I’ve been procrastinating on writing this blog — in part, that’s because I have few thoughts outside of dissertation stuff right now, but also it’s because I’ve been doing more fun things recently. I thought I’d write an update post on the last four weeks, and I’ll keep punting the meritocracy topic until one day I feel inspired. I’m going to write buds and thorns from my current position, since I don’t really remember what I was anticipating/feeling negative about each week, but I’ll include roses and gratitudes for each week.


Week of June 16–22

Roses:

* I got my first dose of the vaccine (June 19)! It was at the Chelsea football stadium (the “home of the champions,” as it is said), which I imagine would be very cool if I were a football fan. Here are some pictures from inside the stadium:


* The Government Department hosted an “end of year” event (June 16), which was somewhat awkward, in the sense that I didn’t know anyone at this event (alas, I’ve done a great job of socializing with LSE people). But I met an interesting group of LSE undergrads who just finished their first year of university, including a guy who ran for his local city council at 18. Yay for running for office!

* I had a nice catch up call with one of my old Pomona professors (June 16), and I got some great advice for dissertation research.

* A Marshall friend was in town in London, so we got Turkish food (amazing food) and went to a used book store, where I found a book by Judith Shklar! Very hard to come by!


Gratitude: I’m grateful that I was able to get the first dose of the vaccine — it’s really a privilege to get some protection from serious illness.


Week of June 23–29

Roses:

* I started a weekly call with an old Pomona friend who I hadn’t kept in super good contact with, which was really nice (June 24).

* I had my first interview for my dissertation! It didn’t go super well, but once I went back and transcribed the piece, I found that I did learn quite a bit from it (June 25).

* The alumni association for Marshalls hosted a constitutional law panel featuring Jeffrey Rosen (a former Marshall who currently directs the National Constitution Center) and Kannon Shanmugan (also a former Marshall who is now a Big Law partner specializing in Supreme Court litigation). It was really cool. Also, they only took one question — and it was mine! The answer was somewhat rambly, but so was my question, so I can’t really blame them (June 25).

* Some old Pomona physics friends want to write a paper about the reading group that we turned into a class (Physics 9), and we had our first meeting this week (June 28). I have some skepticism about our ability to get anything published, but I think it’ll either way be a good exercise and, if anything, be a useful document to pass down to future Physics 9 facilitators (students who basically run the class). Ever since my internships in D.C., I've become a huge fan of writing everything into a memo, because you never know how much it can be helpful if it finds the right hands.

* I got drinks with a friend here, which was really fun! We went to a Wetherspoons, the chain pub in Britain, which was the first time I’ve been. Truly good deals — it was something like ten pounds for a cocktail pitcher, which was more than enough for the two of us. Alas, what the Spoons giveth in cheap alcohol, they also giveth in highly drunk Englishmen. It was also the evening after England beat Germany in the quarterfinals of the Euros, so people were quite merry about the prospects of England actually doing well in a football tournament (June 29).


Gratitude: The person I first interviewed was someone who had already helped me a lot for the project, so I’m extremely grateful that the person was willing to lend so much of their time to this endeavor.


Week of June 30–July 6

Roses:

* I visited Ani’s new flat with him (July 1) and helped him move out (July 2). While that was kind of sad, it was nice to see him happy about his new place!


* An old Pomona friend and I went to Canterbury together (July 3)! It was really cool! Canterbury is the seat of the Anglican Church (think “the Archbishop of Canterbury” — that enigmatic figure who often pops up in English political history, such as in brokering Magna Carta), and it turns out that’s because Canterbury is where Augustine (of Canterbury and not of Hippo, i.e., of Confessions fame, as I just realized) converted King ​​Æthelberht to Christianity, thus planting the seeds for the Church of England. We found the Cathedral to be absolutely gorgeous, and we spent something like three hours just roaming the grounds and seeing the insides. There were some lovely staffers who wanted to tell us all about the history of the Cathedral and its most famous Saint, Thomas Becket, who was killed on order of King Henry II and thus martyred. Also, we had fish and chips (my first time!) at one of the local pubs — the fish and chips were absolutely amazing, but the peas were … gross. As my friend put it, they taste like green refried beans. Here are some pictures of the trip:


* A different Pomona friend came over for July 4. She’s not American, but she wanted a very American experience — so we had burgers, fries, roast asparagus (just to pretend that we had something healthy!), apple pie, and vanilla ice cream as our meal. Plus we went for a nice walk and watched the episode of Parks and Recreation where Leslie Knope first goes to DC (just to showcase our American patriotism).


* When Ani moved out, he took the WiFi router with him. I had scheduled to get WiFi later that week (July 9), but that left me with about a week without WiFi. It turned out to be an extremely productive week — I’d go to LSE during the afternoon/early evening (sometimes having been to the LSE gym that morning and run back to the flat for a shower and lunch), and then after eating dinner back at the flat, I’d read papers on my computer until bedtime. It was actually a great blessing. Plus, living by myself has given me a lot more freedom (especially since my sleep schedule was very different than that of my flatmates).


Gratitude: I’m grateful that my friend reached out and suggested doing the Canterbury trip. I realized I have a ton of trips I want to do, but without something pushing me to do them, I rarely get around to planning them. So the impetus was really helpful.


Week of July 7–13

Roses:

* I had my second interview (Jule 7), which went pretty well but was unfortunately cut a bit short. Nevertheless, it felt pretty productive, and I think less awkward than my first one!

* My LSE cohort had dinner together (July 9), and it was actually the first time I met a lot of the folks in person. They were nice people, although I did feel like I got talked at for basically three hours straight! Here’s some pictures of us all together:


* I met up with my old friend from high school, and we went down to Brixton together (July 10). Brixton is a fascinating place — it’s a neighborhood of London where a lot of the Windrush generation of British Caribbean migrants, who came to Britain (their ‘motherland’) in the 1940s through 1960s, settled. As a result, it has a really cool history. I biked to Brixton with my LSE friend in the winter as part of our ‘London Boy’ trip, but that was when things were closed due to lockdown. This time, we got food at Fish, Wings, and Tings (we had jerk chicken — so good). We also went to the Black Cultural Archives, which included a nice timeline of Black British history as well as a cool exhibition on sickle cell anemia and its racialized politics. Also, it turns out Brixton has a windmill that’s still operating. We learned about how to grind flour, and I even bought some of their ground flour. (I later made bread with it … and, just being honest here, it just doesn’t taste as good as white flour. But alas, when has whole-grain ever tasted as good?)



* England was in the finals of the Euros (July 11), and so even I watched the game. It was a really wild day, in the sense that there were so many English flags and drunken English people walking around even in the early afternoon (the game started at 8pm). Much of the game was rather boring — England scored its first (and only) goal very early on (something like two minutes in), and then Italy didn’t score for a while. But then it got to over time, where neither side scored, and then it went to penalty kicks. And those were so stressful! And the poor English fellows ended up losing in penalty kicks. I had gone to another Marshall’s place for a watch party, and on the way back, it was truly a dismal sight. It was dark, rainy (because, you know, England), and there were just so many crestfallen British people walking home from the pub, heads down in disappointment. Also, lots of drunken people; I intellectually know lots of British people pee in public at night, but it was the first time I’d witnessed it!

* I had a nice call with one of my old Pomona friends (July 12); I hadn’t talked with her in a long time, so it was really good to see her and hear from her. She was calling from Pomona’s campus, which was kind of wild.


Gratitude: I’m quite fond of the friend from high school that I went to Brixton with, and I’m really grateful that I got to see her again before she leaves to go back to the US for a few months.



Week of July 14–17

* I had two more interviews this week (July 14, July 17), both of which went really well and I think I learned a lot from. I like to think I’m getting better at interviewing, but in reality, it’s probably just that I have better questions to ask now that I’m learning more and hearing from experts more often. Also, both of the people I talked to this week were really eager to help, whereas I think the last ones were less enthusiastic.

* I’ve been calling my LSE law professors to get advice about approaching a legal career since I’ll be applying for law school this fall. I had two calls this week for that as well (July 14, July 16). I’m not sure that either was all that helpful, but I did walk away from the first feeling much more excited and eager about a legal career; the second call just made me feel confused (I got the distinct feeling that that professor doesn’t like me very much, which is unfortunate because I really liked her and her class!).

* We heard back about our OLC paper! Last time, we had gotten a revise-and-resubmit, but this time we got a conditional acceptance! The strange thing about the comments, though, were that two reviewers were extremely happy with the paper, and one was extremely snarky. I got the sense, though, that the reviewer who didn’t like the paper read the wrong version of the paper — the critiques didn’t make all that much sense, in my humble opinion, and indeed some of them were factually wrong (i.e., the person stated we cited people that we didn’t, and claimed we didn’t cite people that we did). Either way, though, a win!

* I went to the Tower of London! LSE gave us free tickets, so I finally got to go to that infamous prison where so many habeas writs were issued! I think much of the fanfare for the Tower is associated with the fancy armor, the crown jewels, and the British soldiers dressed up with their tall fur hats and red uniforms. To be honest, though, what I found by far the most powerful were the etchings on the walls by prisoners, people who presumably just wanted to leave some record about their humanity and experiences. Many of the prisoners were powerful and were jailed for political reasons; others for religious reasons (I noticed many Catholics and people accused of sorcery on the list of prisoners). I also saw the location where the Princes in the Towers were allegedly found (i.e., where Charles II found two skeletons that were later determined to be the remains of children and were thus presumed to be the missing children). Also, I learned about the Constable’s Dues, a funny ritual where the crew of a Royal Navy warship delivers a barrel of rum to the Constable of the Tower, reflecting the Constable’s traditional form of sovereignty over the area (among other things, the Constable could extract a toll from ships passing into London, and the Constable would offer protection and perform state functions such as the adjudication of civil claims and enforcement of criminal law). Here are some pictures:


* I went to go visit Ani and see his place now that he’s moved in! It was pretty nice, although it’s very hot (there’s a ton of windows, no blinds, no air conditioning, and very little ventilation because the windows don’t open). I think he’ll be miserable for these next few days (we’re getting a sizzling high of 89 F, which is sufficiently hot that the government issued a heat-health alert), but otherwise it seems like a wonderful flat. The location is pretty cool — tons of green space. We went for a walk, and I took some pictures.


Gratitude:

* I’m grateful to the folks who were willing to take time out of their busy lives to do interviews. (I think both of the folks I interviewed this week were actually on vacation — one was visiting their in-laws, and the other was in Egypt! So even more amazing that they were willing to take the time.)

* I’m grateful to the reviewers for looking over our OLC paper and providing really constructive feedback. I have skepticism of this second round of comments, but nonetheless, that really qualified and smart people are essentially doing free work for us is kind of incredible in itself. It’s something to be grateful for, I think.

* I’m grateful to my professors for being willing to take time during their summer (their main time to do research) to chat with me and give me advice on building a legal career.


Buds:

* We’re having a Marshall dinner this upcoming Wednesday, which will be the first time that I’ve been at a big Marshall gathering. It should be fun! Or, at least, it’ll be free food and an excuse to wear a tie.

* After the dinner, we’re going on a group trip up to Glasgow! That should be really cool, if only because it gives me a change of location at which to do dissertation work. Half-jokes aside, it’ll be really nice to see Scotland and to hang out with non-London Marshall friends (some of whom I only know through Zoom!).

* I’m running a 10K next week! I’m running with a few friends (a high school and a Pomona friend), and we’re running to raise money for Alzheimer’s Society, a charity in the UK that funds research and provides care for folks with dementia. If you’re able, please donate here — I’d love to raise more money! In case you’re curious, I brainstormed some Q&As for this (this is a repost of my Facebook post, so some of you will have seen it already):

Q: Your fundraiser is in British Pounds — but Isaac, I’m ’Murican and only have US dollars!

A: No worries at all! When you send the donation, you can change the currency to dollars; it’ll charge your bank a transaction fee, so you should check your card policies on that front, but otherwise it’ll work smoothly.


Q: I think this is a great cause — but there are so many other causes! How do I, as an effective altruist, know that this is the right one to send my money?

A: I think it’s a tough one, but personally I have some skepticism that we can flatten “efficacy” into a unidimensional measure with which to rank order charities. GiveWell, for example, tells us that among the most “high-impact, cost-effective charities” are those that provide medicine and mosquito nets to deal with malaria — an obvious low-cost intervention with huge humanitarian benefits. They presumably only assess charities working in “global health and development,” though, because the outcomes are fairly easy to measure and thus verify as positive; indeed, they don’t include single disease research-funding charities (like Alzheimer’s Society) in their assessment. But it is a good thing that such charities exist. For I don’t think we would want a society that invests only in proven, direct solutions to social problems without funding speculative R&D or root-cause efforts, even if doing so generates inefficiencies.


So if, to you, plural ideas about efficacious investments are permissible, then the next question is whether this particular charity is good at using its money. I’m not financially literate in any sense of the term, but that statement is especially true when it comes to assessing non-profit finances. So make the judgment yourself: if you want information about this specific charity, here’s its most recent financial breakdown. For what it’s worth, this Random Guy on the Internet (™) also looked at effective altruism and concluded this charity is worth donating to. (He does critique Just Giving for being a for-profit platform that takes fees, though; it’s a 1.9% or 2.9% + 20 pence fee based on the currency you donate in. Take that as you will.)


Q: But Isaac, do you run? Can you even do a 10K?

A: Indeed, I am not a good runner! So give me some extrinsic motivation to run by donating more to this cause 🙂

* I ended up getting off the waitlist and into LSE’s Applied Social Data Science Master’s program, so I’m actually going to stay in London! I’m pretty excited (although I had definitely convinced myself that Manchester was going to be really fun). The thing I’m not excited for is trying to find a new place to live, though! And I’ve bought a sufficient number of books that it’s going to be a major pain to get them to the next place.


Thorns:

* I am a bit nervous about the 10K because my knee has been hurting when I’ve been running. I’ve been sticking to biking at the gym to get my cardio as a result, so fingers crossed that the rest is sufficient to help it heal!

* A lot of my emails seem to have gone to people’s spam folders when I was trying to get interviews, which has led my dissertation to feel somewhat disastrous. Also, my “snowball” technique wasn’t working — none of my first three interviewees gave me people to talk to. But my fourth person was super helpful, and a contact also helped find some further names, so I’m feeling more optimistic! Either way, though, I’m feeling really passionate about this project — I’m spending a lot of my free mental space thinking about my dissertation. The theme song for the project (and that I’m going to quote in the actual dissertation): “End Game” by (who else?) Taylor Swift. It’s a song that I didn’t like when I first heard it (to be honest, I didn’t like any of that album, Reputation, except for the last song, “New Year’s Day,” on my first listen through), but the song is the right vibe and offers meaningful insights into what I’m getting at with my dissertation. The key quote: “Reputation precedes me, they told you I’m crazy / I swear I don’t love the drama; it loves me.”


Future topics:

* I certainly will eventually write about meritocracy, but, to be honest, I don’t feel sufficient intellectual interest in it right now to be able to generate a good post about it. It’ll happen eventually.

* I want to write a bit about Brnovich, the Supreme Court’s Section 2 case, as well as Collins, its case dealing with the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.


92 views0 comments
bottom of page