[EL] common assertion about redistricting isn't true

[Abigail Thernstrom]

	I am sure that none were -- although of course I could be wrong.  But  
prior to Allen, there was no reason for any jurisdiction to believe  
redistricting had to be submitted for preclearance.

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



On Jun 12, 2011, at 8:24 PM, john.k.tanner at gmail.com wrote:

> And I would question whether any redistricting plans were submitted  
> for section 5 review pre-Allen
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jmwice at gmail.com
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:32
> To: <richardwinger at yahoo.com>; <law-election at uci.edu>
> Reply-To: jmwice at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [EL] common assertion about redistricting isn't true
>
> Interesting point. Perhaps we can refer to 2011-2012 the first  
> regular post decennial census redistricting with a Democrat in the  
> White House.
>
> Jeff Wice
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:05:03
> To: <law-election at uci.edu>
> Reply-To: richardwinger at yahoo.com
> Subject: [EL] common assertion about redistricting isn't true
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election