[EL] message from Michael Solimine re Arizona tries to topple sec. 5 of voting rights act

[Justin Levitt]

I think the answer may be in the relief requested ... and actually, it 
looks to me like Arizona is wrong in requesting a three-judge court.

NAMUDNO originally asked for bailout under 42 USC 1973b -- which is 
heard a three-judge court  (1973b(a)(5)) -- with a challenge to 
constitutionality offered only as alternative relief.

Plaintiffs in the Shelby County and Laroque cases never asked for 
bailout (or for preclearance) -- they simply asked for a declaratory 
judgment as to constitutionality.  No 3-judge court authorized, but the 
case has to be heard in the D.D.C. under 1973/l/(b).   (The DOJ's memo 
opposing 
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Laroque-Memo-4-21-10.pdf> 
a three-judge court and the DC court's order 
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LaRoque-Order-5-12-10.pdf> 
in Laroque denying a three-judge court lay out the distinction nicely.)

Arizona doesn't appear to be asking for either bailout or preclearance 
-- it's an all-out attack on the constitutionality and scope of sections 
4 and 5.  In that respect, though the underlying claims are slightly 
different, it's just like Shelby County and Laroque.  And under the 
/Laroque/ court's treatment, I think the case should be heard by a 
single judge in the D.D.C., with appeal to the D.C. Circuit, not direct 
to the Supreme Court.

Justin


On 8/26/2011 10:41 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Solimine, Michael (solimime)
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:44 PM
> To: 'law-election at uci.edu'
> Subject: FW: [EL] Arizona tries to topple sec. 5 of voting rights act
>
> I have a question about the proper court to hear challenges to section 5
> of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint described in the message below
> is filed in the D.D.C., and Arizona requests that a three-judge district
> court be convened to hear this constitutional challenge. This is the
> correct venue, so far as I can tell, see, e.g., NAMUDNO v. Holder.
> Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the puzzle is that other
> constitutional attacks pending in the D.D.C., as best as I can tell, are
> not before a three-judge district court. The LaRoque (recently decided
> on standing grounds in the D.C. Cir.) and Shelby County cases are
> apparently not before three-judge districts courts, with any decision
> appealable only to the Supreme Court. Any insights are appreciated.
>
> Michael Solimine
>
>
> -
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110826/6e0d3e7f/attachment.html>