Barrett

Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.

Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Filtering by

Clear all filters

133430-Thumbnail Image.png

Scrutinizing Gender Discrimination: Should Courts Protect Gender with Suspect Classification?

Description
Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to…

Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to a discriminatory law in question. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class become immediately subject to strict scrutiny while most discriminatory laws only need to pass a rational basis test. Craig v. Boren (1976) established a precedent for the class of sex, which thereafter became subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny as a quasi-suspect class. With a more visible distinction between sex and gender today, this study seeks to determine whether gender rather than sex may become protected through heightened scrutiny by applying factors for suspect classification. In a call for heightened scrutiny for both gender and sex, this thesis argues that the suspect classification of both classes should include combinations of subclasses between gender, sex, and any other protected class. The central thesis employs a content analysis of case law, statutory law, and administrative law as it discriminates against classes of people with varying protection under the court system in the United States. In the question of whether courts should protect gender with suspect classification, the main argument calls for such action but if and only if an intersectional approach to protecting gender along with sex at a heightened level of judicial scrutiny is applied by individual judges on higher courts of review.
ContributorsTorres, Cristian Jesus (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Durfee, Alesha (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
147630-Thumbnail Image.png

Preserving Democracy in 2020: An Examination of Policy Action within the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Description

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies…

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.
ContributorsPorritt, Sierra Joy (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Gaona, William (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05