About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


46 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. [i] (2012-2013)

handle is hein.journals/collsp46 and id is 1 raw text is: COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS Volume 46 Number 1 Fall 2012 Copyright 0 2012 by the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, Inc. JURY DUTY IS A POLL TAX THE CASE FOR SEVERING THE LINK BETWEEN VOTER REGISTRATION AND JURY SERVICE .................................................................................................1 Federal jury service has been formally connected to voter registration since 1968. Congress intended for this linkage to improve the American jury system by increasing representation of groups previously excluded from the jury pool. However, as legislative inaction and judicial acquiescence have exacerbated the economic costs of jury service, this practice has also parasitically burdened the right to vote, creating a self-disenfranchising incentive. This Note argues that jury duty is sufficiently burdensome, and that this burden sufficiently impacts voting, so as to constitute a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a simple, effective solution to this problem: prohibiting the use of voter registration lists to create jury lists, and instead using any number of available alternative sources to create a representative jury pool. FAIR HOUSING ACT CHALLENGES TO THE USE OF CONSUMER CREDIT INFORMATION IN HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE UNDERWRITING: IS THE MCCARRAN- FERGUSON ACT A BAR? .............................................................49 Despite the promise of the Fair Housing Act, structural inequality in the housing market persists. One of the most notable manifestations of this inequality is the racial and ethnic divide in patterns of homeownership. Although many factors contribute to this disparity, civil rights and consumer- protection groups have highlighted insurers' practice of using consumer credit information to price homeowners insurance policies and to decide who qualifies for coverage. These groups argue that this practice can limit certain minority groups' access to insurance coverage. However, plaintiffs that have sought to challenge this practice under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) have met an unexpected foe: the McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA), a federal statute that mandates state preemption of federal law if that federal law impairs, invalidates, or supersedes state insurance law (reverse preemption). Where a state law regulates the use of credit information in insurance decision- making, the MFA has been invoked to bar recovery for insurance discrimination under the FHA. This Note examines courts' conflicting interpretations of the MFA in insurance scoring cases and argues that future courts should adopt a narrow approach to MFA reverse preemption, which would allow claims under the FHA to proceed.