202 Chapters
Medium 9780253001924

10 After Namudno: The Shape of Future Litigation

Edited by Daniel McCool Indiana University Press ePub

The most significant legal challenge in nearly three decades to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (2009) (“NAMUDNO”), was decided by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2009. In an 8-1 opinion, the justices overturned a lower court decision that had denied a small Travis County, Texas, suburban jurisdiction from seeking a “bailout” from the “preclearance” provision of the act. But it is what the justices did not do – strike down the act as unconstitutional – that matters most for the critics and defenders of this provision. Some have speculated that it is only a matter of time before the constitutional issue once again presents itself to the High Court, while others believe the issue has been dodged indefinitely. Who is right?

Some background on the case will be useful for understanding the court’s opinion and what is likely to happen next. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was, as the Supreme Court recognized in this opinion, a “historic accomplishment” designed to end the official governmental barriers to voting that blacks faced in the Deep South by eliminating any type of literacy test, providing federal voting registrars, and criminalizing harassment of black voters. These objectives were enforced through two provisions: Section 4(b), which pinpointed the states and jurisdictions where black disenfranchisement was the most pernicious, and Section 5, the “preclearance” requirement, which was to end the never-ending gamesmanship by southern election officials that was used to prevent blacks from registering to vote.

See All Chapters
Medium 9780253017314

Unconstitutional Abuse of Power or Legitimate and Necessary Security Measures? NSA Programs under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

David P Fidler Indiana University Press ePub

Unconstitutional Abuse of Power or
Legitimate and Necessary Security Measures?
NSA Programs under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act

It all started with disclosure of this document, which came to be known as the “Verizon Order.” In it, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered Verizon to produce to the NSA on a daily basis records of telephone calls—telephony or telephone metadata—between the United States and foreign countries and wholly within the United States, pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (codified as 50 U.S.C. §1861). Information sought under Section 215 for foreign intelligence purposes or to protect against international terrorism must be “relevant to an authorized investigation.” The Verizon Order revealed that the FBI, NSA, and FISC interpreted this requirement to mean the NSA could collect from Verizon, and from other telephone companies under similar FISC orders, metadata on millions of telephone calls made by Americans every day. Exposure of the telephone metadata program, and the associated interpretation of Section 215, triggered a political and legal controversy in the United States.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781574411522

1 Diagnostic

Jorge Antonio Renaud University of North Texas Press PDF

Chapter One



ince October 1, 1849, when a horse thief became the first person to be held in the state’s custody instead of by local law enforcement, Huntsville has been synonymous with Texas prisons. The beautiful town of

Huntsville—nestled in the midst of the state’s most lovely forests; four votes from being state capital instead of Austin; adopted home of General Sam Houston—is, nonetheless, by virtue of that first prison, fated to always be linked with prisons in the minds of Texans. That unit, built in what would soon be downtown Huntsville and known as the Walls, also soon included the growing system’s administrative offices. Over a century later, as the system began to expand rapidly, it became obvious that a separate unit was needed as a processing center. The Diagnostic Unit, built in 1964 a few thousand yards from the original Walls, became that intake unit. While there are now other units that may also serve some of the functions as the Diagnostic Unit, (now called the Byrd Unit), it was the first, it remains the most thorough, and it is the one I will use as a model.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781574411522

Appendix A Custody Levels

Jorge Antonio Renaud University of North Texas Press PDF

Appendix A

Custody Levels

The following explains what custody levels exist in TDCJ-ID (Institutional Division), and gives a brief summary of the privileges allowed at each level. For a more detailed idea of the levels and privileges, see the chapters on Money, Recreation, and Segregation.

1. Minimum out, State Approved Trusty I—Eligible for four contact visits each month. Can work outside without direct supervision except for sporadic check-ups. May be assigned to trusty camp. Maximum allowed on recreation, commissary, and property privileges.

2. Minimum out, Line I—Same as above, except that may be from

Line I to SAT II.

3. Minimum out, restricted—May be from Line I to SAT II. Eligible for same privileges as above. Must have direct unarmed supervision while outside the fence and cannot live in trusty camp.

4. Minimum in—May be from Line I to SAT III. Must have direct, armed supervision if outside fence. Maximum privileges on commissary, recreation, and property. Allowed from one to three contact visits monthly, depending on SAT status.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781574411829

8. Community Service

Gail Caputo University of North Texas Press PDF


Community Service


Community service is compulsory, free, or donated labor performed by an offender as punishment for a crime. The requirement of an offender to perform community service is often referred to as a community service order. An offender under a community service order is required to perform labor for a certain length of time at charitable not-for-profit agencies, such as domestic violence shelters, or governmental offices, such as courthouses. The work is completed within a proscribed time period, such as six months. Community service is closely aligned with restitution in that the offender engages in acts designed, in part, to make reparation for harm caused by his or her criminal offending, but these acts are directed to the larger community in the form of good works rather than to the victim alone. The main idea is that the work an offender performs is unpaid and benefits the community in some meaningful way. Community service addresses several important goals:

See All Chapters

See All Chapters