[EL] Another Texas redistricting decision/ELB News and Commentary 12/23/11

Fri Dec 23 06:26:13 PST 2011

For the Record,

Not that I mind being called "legendary" (even in a disparaging way), but
the reporters and subsequent commentators have made a muddle of my Condor
district story.  I told the story of a district that was made of residual
scraps of other districts due to ripple effects as an example of how not
every district has a real community of interest, and that we humorously
called it the Condor seat because there was a Condor reservation in the
middle.  The reporters apparently did not get the point or the humor.  But
now it is alleged that it was a Congressional seat (nope, it was an
Assembly district) and was constructed for an ally of the the Governor
(nope, I drew the damn thing and it was news to people in Sacto when we
presented it to them).

I join the chorus of those who say that organizing the grassroots to lobby
is legal, smart and appropriate.  I would not defend false groups, and the
reform community might consider a disclosure requirement for paid lobbyists
who testify or submit proposals in the future, but I note that the
politicalparty that opposes disclosure for Super PAC contributors
claims foul when
the same tactic is employed for lobbying.  The "tell" on political
arguments is inconsistency.

Bruce Cain, "legendary mapmaker"
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   “Voting Rights: What’s A Reasonable Requirement?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26970>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26970>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This story
> <http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143916145/voting-rights-whats-a-reasonable-requirement>appeared
> on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26970&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20A%20Reasonable%20Requirement%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
>   Only 33,000, Not 240,000, South Carolina Voters Lacking ID?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26966>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26966>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports<http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/23/election-agency-data-called-flawed/>.
> The 240,000 figure always struck me as very high.  It will be interesting
> to see how DOJ treats this new analysis as it decides whether to preclear
> South Carolina’s voter i.d. law.  The current deadline<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/justice_department_facing_deadline_on_voter_id_decision.php>for that decision is Tuesday, but I wonder if these new data would allow
> for pushing that decision back further.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26966&title=Only%2033%2C000%2C%20Not%20240%2C000%2C%20South%20Carolina%20Voters%20Lacking%20ID%3F&description=>
>   Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
>   “The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket, 2001–2010: A Legacy
> of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26963>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26963>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The final version of my article is now available<http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2011.0111>in the
> *Election Law Journal*.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26963&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Shrinking%20Election%20Law%20Docket%2C%202001%E2%80%932010%3A%20A%20Legacy%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%20or%20Fear%20of%20the%20Roberts%20Court%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>   “The Frenzy Over ProPublica’s Redistricting Report”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26959>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26959>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> John Myers reports<http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/12/21/the-frenzy-over-propublicas-redistricting-report/>.
> Said John Burton <http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/> of the report:
> “It’s complete bull…t,  an absolute f…ing fabrication.”
>
> More here<http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/redistricting-partners/newsletter/164.html>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26959&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Frenzy%20Over%20ProPublica%E2%80%99s%20Redistricting%20Report%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
>   More Breaking News: 3-Judge DC Court Explains Its Decision Denying
> Texas Summary Judgment in Redistricting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26955>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26955>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Though the three-judge-court denied summary judgment<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25166>a few weeks ago and set the Texas redistricting case in DC for trial, it
> did not issue an opinion at that time.  It said an opinion would come later
> (to give time for the other three-judge court (in San Antonio) to craft a
> redistricting plan to be used in the interim, the plan which is currently
> before the Supreme Court).  Today the Court issued a 44-page opinion<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-dc-msj-deny.pdf>explaining its reasoning in denying summary judgment.
>
> The opinion is significant for two independent reasons.
>
> First, and most importantly, the opinion provides strong reasons to think
> that Texas will not be able to obtain preclearance of its plans (though the
> issues will depend upon how the judges resolve contested facts at trial),
> and that fact could be relevant to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing
> and decision on the interim plan.  If the opinion convinces Justice Kennedy
> (and the Court liberals) that Texas’s proposed plans likely should not be
> precleared, then that is good reason these plans should not be deferred to
> by the courts in crafting an interim plan.  Texas in its brief<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Texas-merits-brief-12-21-11.pdf>filed yesterday conceded there should not be deference to a proposed (but
> unprecleared) plan when it is likely to believe the plan should not be
> precleared.  The opinion today will be thrown back in Texas’s face in the
> second round of briefing before the Supreme Court.
>
> Second, the opinion is the first one (or one of the first ones) to answer
> some open questions about the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
> since Congress amended it in 2006, and to answer how section 5 is supposed
> to handle retrogression questions in the face of an increasing minority
> population. The decision here is sure to influence how other courts
> consider these questions, at least until the Supreme Court speaks on these
> questions.
>
> Pretty busy in the election law world for the week before Christmas.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26955&title=More%20Breaking%20News%3A%203-Judge%20DC%20Court%20Explains%20Its%20Decision%20Denying%20Texas%20Summary%20Judgment%20in%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
>   Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
>   “Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small suing state officials over voter
> fraud case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26950>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 4:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26950>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News<http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-city_pleasantville_brigantine/atlantic-city-councilman-marty-small-suing-state-officials-over-voter/article_3dd7d1c8-2b42-11e1-bcfd-001871e3ce6c.html>from NJ: “Councilman Marty Small is suing six top officials with the state
> Attorney General’s Office and State Police because they allegedly
> ‘fabricated’ evidence, manipulated witnesses and otherwise corrupted their
> investigation in trying to nail him on voter fraud charges in a case that
> ended in his acquittal.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26950&title=%E2%80%9CAtlantic%20City%20Councilman%20Marty%20Small%20suing%20state%20officials%20over%20voter%20fraud%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>  Problems with Virginia Ballot Access for Republican Presidential
> Candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26947>
> Posted on December 22, 2011 4:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26947>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Richard Winger notes<http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/12/22/ron-paul-and-mitt-romney-may-be-only-candidates-on-virginia-presidential-primary-ballot/>that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney may be the only candidates on the Republican
> party ballot in Virginia.  Chris Ashby says<http://www.ashby-law.com/better-things-to-do/>it is time to change Virginia’s “unreasonable ballot access law.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26947&title=Problems%20with%20Virginia%20Ballot%20Access%20for%20Republican%20Presidential%20Candidates&description=>
>   Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46> | Comments
> Off
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111223/79688a54/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111223/79688a54/attachment.png>