[EL] Kinston case, more news

[Abigail Thernstrom]

	I don't see what adjustment could be made in the Kinston case that  
would eliminate the allegedly discriminatory feature to which DOJ  
objected.

	Party affiliation is either indicated or not.

	Abby

Abigail Thernstrom
Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
www.thernstrom.com


On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:48 PM, john.k.tanner at gmail.com wrote:

> I don't believe that the earlier GA case was a straight grant of  
> preclearance to the same plan to which the Department had objected.   
> As I understand, GA made some adjustment to their scheme that  
> satisfied the objection.  That would place the GA case among the  
> many declaratory judgment actions that have been resolved by  
> eliminating the discriminatory feature.
>
> I don't recall a section 5 objection that was withdrawn without some  
> change, or a Voting Section case that the Department dismissed  
> without obtaining some relief.
>
> (I understand that some believe the GA adjustment did not in fact  
> solve the problem, but I have no idea whether that view is well- 
> founded.)
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:40:15
> To: law-election at UCI.EDU<law-election at UCI.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Kinston case, more news
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election