Author: Sharyn O'Halloran

New York Road Runners Club Champions Commitment to Running

Promoting the sport of running as a means to health and wellness, the New York Road Runners club hosts numerous race activities including marathons and ultra-marathons. Sharyn Oโ€™Halloran, a professor in the department of political science and professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, trained to run marathons and ultimately ran her first 60K (37.28 mile) race with the club in 2013. The Road Runners club provides an outlet for individuals like Sharyn Oโ€™Halloran to embrace the sport of running. The organization provides inspiration to individuals to get them running and keep them running as they develop a lifelong commitment to better health.

Recognized globally as a premiere running organization, the New York Road Runners club holds internationally recognized events including the TCS New York City Marathon. The club, established more than half a century ago, boasts some 55,000 members who participate in the cityโ€™s annual marathon. Passionate about promoting the sport of running into the future, the club sponsors numerous youth educational programs and activities.

Community Impact at Columbia University

The author of several scholarly books and numerous articles on contemporary American politics, Sharyn Oโ€™Halloran teaches political economy and international and public affairs at New York Cityโ€™s Columbia University. In addition to her writing, research, and instructional duties, Professor Sharyn Oโ€™Halloran belongs to the board of directors of Community Impact at Columbia University.

Founded in 1981, Community Impact at Columbia University (CI) has become the universityโ€™s primary interface with the New York City communities of Harlem, Morningside Heights, and Washington Heights. An integrated service organization with a strong emphasis on education, its student and faculty volunteers identify areas of need within the community where CI can reasonably have an impact.

Independent of the university, CI operates on a not-for-profit basis in the operation of programs that serve more than 8,000 area residents annually. About 900 volunteers from Columbia and Barnard College participate in CIโ€™s 27 community service programs that cover a broad swath of areas, including emergency services, adult education, health and environment, and youth programs. Another area, leadership, provides volunteers the opportunity to learn and experience management of a non-profit enterprise.

CI is governed by a combination of a board of directors, made up of professionals from Columbia and the community, and four student representatives. CIโ€™s day-to-day operation, though, is guided by a group of seven elected student executives who work in close collaboration with the board of directors.

Voting Rights Act Summary: Supreme Court Decision

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional in the landmark case Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, Attorney General et al. The act in question set forth 1) the federal right to preclearance of statesโ€™ voting practices in order to prevent race-based discrimination and 2) the standards used to determine which states and districts such power applied to. Section 5 set forth the former, Section 4 the latter. Eliminating Section 4โ€”and therefore its coverage provisionsโ€”makes Section 5 preclearance provisions mute; without grounds for who preclearance applies to, the power itself is meaningless.

However, the Supreme Courtโ€™s ruling did not strip the Voting Rights Act of all federal preclearance power. Section 2 remained, stating that โ€œno qualifications or prerequisite to votingโ€ฆ shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.โ€

Two major factors change as Section 2, not Section 5, becomes the source to challenge race-based discrimination in elections. The first is a shift in the burden of proof. Under Section 5 preclearance provisions, those who seek to change election laws must show that neither the intent nor effect of the change discriminates against minority voters. Under Section 2, minorities will have to show that the impact of the law discriminates against minorities. The second factor is a change in the status quo. Under Section 5 rules, the existing law remains in effect until the DOJ approves the proposed changes. Under Section 2, the new law goes becomes law and opponents must seek to overturn it by showing discretionary effect.ย  Both factors point in the same direction: the ruling makes it harder for minorities defend their voting rights through the courts.ย 

Voting Rights Published Work

Voting Rights Published Work

1) โ€œDo Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation inย Congress?โ€ Coauthored with Charles Cameron and David Epstein. American Politicalย Science Review 90: 794-812, 1996.

2) โ€œMeasuring the Electoral and Policy Impact of Majority-Minority Voting Districts.โ€ Coauthored with David Epstein. American Journal of Political Science 43 (April): 367-95,ย 1999.

3) โ€œA Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation.โ€ Co-authoredย with David Epstein. American Political Science Review 93 (March): 187-91, 1999.

4) โ€œThe Electoral Impact of Majority-Minority Districts,โ€ in Continuity and Change inย House Elections. Edited by David Brady, John Cogan, and Morris Fiorina. Co-authoredย with David Epstein. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press, 2000.

5) โ€œTrends in Substantive and Descriptive Minority Representation, 1974โ€“2000,โ€ in Theย Future of the Voting Rights Act. Edited by David Epstein, Rodolfo de la Garza, Sharynย Oโ€™Halloran and Richard Pildes. Co-authored with David Epstein. New York: Russellย Sage Foundation Press, 2006.

6) โ€œGerrymanders as Tradeoffs: The Co-Evolution of Social Scientific and Legalย Approaches to Racial Redistricting,โ€ In Designing Democratic Government. Edited byย Margaret Levi, James Johnson, Jack Knight and Susan Stokes. Co-authored with Davidย Epstein. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 2008.

7) โ€œA Strategic Dominance Argument for Retaining Section 5 of the VRA.โ€ Co-authoredย with David Epstein. Election Law Journal 5 (3): 283-292, 2006.

8) โ€œA Strategic Dominance Argument for Retaining Section 5 of the VRA.โ€ Co-authoredย with David Epstein. Election Law Journal 5 (3): 283-292, 2006.

9) โ€œEstimating the Impact of Redistricting on Minority Substantive Representationโ€ย Co-authored with David Epstein, Michael Herron, and David Park. Journal of Law,ย Economics & Organization, 23:499-518, 2007.

10) โ€œDoes the New VRA Section 5 Overrule Georgia v. Ashcroft?โ€ Co-authored with Davidย Epstein. NYU Annual Survey of American Law 63:619: 631-59, 2008.

11) The Future of the Voting Rights Act. Co-edited with David Epstein, Rodolfo de la Garzaย and Richard Pildes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.