[EL] VA legislative plans precleared
Chambers, Hank
hchamber at richmond.edu
Tue Jun 21 09:32:04 PDT 2011
I hear you, but it was a little bit more complicated than that. In Virginia, the Dem-controlled Senate did Senate redistricting; the Rep-controlled House did House redistricting. The reports are that the House and Senate did not confer much or amicably. The plans were mashed together, so that Gov. McDonnell had to veto both the Senate and House lines or let both sets of lines pass. Gov. McDonnell vetoed the first combined bill, then approved the second combined bill. Of course, the second combined bill was submitted for preclearance. Plenty of politics was played on both sides and both seemed to get something.
By and large, African American legislators appeared to believe that minority voters would have as good a chance to continue to elect candidates of their choice as they currently have. They appeared to be worried about more than their own reelection. Commentators, both African American and not, have various takes on how well those legislators (and other legislators) stood up for minority voters. I have no comment on that.
-Hank
Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
Professor of Law
University of Richmond School of Law
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond, Va. 23173
(804) 289-8199
-----Original Message-----
From: Abigail Thernstrom [mailto:thernstr at fas.harvard.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Chambers, Hank
Cc: David Becker; 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] VA legislative plans precleared
Translation: Black incumbents thought they were in no danger with the new map, and indeed, believed white Democrats would be aided by black votes dispersed more widely.
Abby
Abigail Thernstrom
Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute www.thernstrom.com
On Jun 20, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Chambers, Hank wrote:
> It is fair to say that the Virginia districts are all about politics,
> in the inoffensive sense of the word. That is, the districts were
> likely about the best that Democratic legislators thought they could
> get given that Democrats control the state Senate and Republicans
> control the House of Delegates and the Governorship. That arguably is
> borne out by the substantial voting support that African American
> legislators gave to the precleared districts.
>
> -Hank
>
> Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
> Professor of Law
> University of Richmond
> 28 Westhampton Way
> Richmond, VA 23173
> 804-289-8199
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> ] On Behalf Of Abigail Thernstrom [thernstr at fas.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:08 PM
> To: David Becker
> Cc: 'Election Law'
> Subject: Re: [EL] VA legislative plans precleared
>
> David --
>
> Oh, I agree. If a federal law guaranteeing minority voters "the
> ability to elect the candidates of their choice" was still essential
> in 2003, Ashcroft was no guide. It provided no coherent legal
> standards to govern the preclearance process. It tried to solve one
> definitional problem (the unsettled meaning of the "effective exercise
> of the electoral franchise") only to create others. When was an
> "influence" district influential? When did a white incumbent hold
> committee or other legislative power that was truly invaluable to
> black constituents? Etc.
>
> I do think Bob Bauer was right in pointing to one virtue of Ashcroft,
> however. He said: "There is something there worth taking seriously,
> which is respect for politics - for 'horse-trading' and the like by
> those elected to do precisely that and to answer for it." In other
> words, the Court had said, in effect, let legislators be legislators.
> And let black legislators make the deals they see as politically
> beneficial to their constituents. In 1965, politics as usual in a
> state like Georgia could not be trusted, but the black establishment
> had been a partner in the state's post-2000 redistricting process,
>
> I will read your own analysis of the case soon. Thanks for citing.
>
> I haven't looked at the Virginia districts either, btw. (-:
>
> Abby
>
>
> Abigail Thernstrom
> Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Adjunct Scholar, American
> Enterprise Institute www.thernstrom.com<http://www.thernstrom.com>
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:01 PM, David Becker wrote:
>
> Abby,
>
> I appreciate your interpretation of the Georgia v. Ashcroft decision,
> though I think it's fair to say that Justice O'Connor's opinion was
> not nearly so clear about what a "coalition district"
> was, and how a new "coalition district" should be weighed against an
> existing "ability-to-elect" district. (I won't rehash all the facts
> of the case, of which Abby cited a few, but black support for the
> plans was not nearly as unanimous as some suggest. If anyone is
> interested, you can read my analysis of the case
> here<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/ch_9_becker_3-9-07.pdf
> >). In fact, if anything, I think she was clear that a "coalition
> district" was NOT an "ability-to-elect" district - i.e., the minority
> candidate of choice was not getting elected. However, in the
> hypothetical you seem to be posing (and please correct me if I'm
> wrong), the minority candidate of choice IS getting elected, albeit in
> a district where they form less than the majority, requiring some
> crossover voting. Again, the key inquiry is not whether the
> percentage has been lowered (though that may be relevant), but whether
> the underlying ability-to-elect existed in the benchmark, and whether
> it's been diminished in the new plan.
>
> And also for the record, I haven't looked at the Virginia districts,
> so I have no opinion on whether the ability-to-elect was diminished,
> but I agree with Abby's point (I and I hope I'm not misstating it)
> that a mere reduction of minority percentage in a district doesn't, in
> and of itself, mean that minority voters' ability-to-elect has been
> reduced.
>
> David
>
>
> David J. Becker
> Project Director, Election Initiatives The Pew Center on the States
> 901 E Street NW | 10th Floor
> Washington, DC 20004
> p: 202.552.2136 | f: 202.552.2299
> e: dbecker at pewtrusts.org<mailto:dbecker at pewtrusts.org> |
> www.pewtrusts.org <http://www.pewtrusts.org/>
>
> From: Abigail Thernstrom [mailto:thernstr at fas.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:44 PM
> To: David Becker
> Cc: Michael McDonald; 'Election Law'
> Subject: Re: [EL] VA legislative plans precleared
>
>
> Okay, not quite a dark black line, but the main story is
> the VRARA's rejection of Ashcroft, which had sanctioned coalition
> districts in which the percentage of black voters had been reduced,
> although not below 50 percent.. As you will remember, ten out of
> eleven black state senators had supported the map submitted to the DC
> dist ct, along with thirty-three out of thirty-four black
> representatives in the Georgia House. John Lewis, in testimony, also
> defended the state's decision. But while Justice O'Connor argued that
> states should have the flexibility to choose substantive over
> descriptive representation, the decision was deeply opposed by the
> civil rights community, and its opposition was apparent in the
> congressional hearings leading up to the 2006 statute.
>
> Dealing with the Ashcroft problem was the whole point of
> the language I quoted from the '06 statute and the recently issued
> guidelines. And my only objection to Mike's comment was the
> suggestion that it was noteworthy that DOJ had precleared the VA plan
> even though the black percentage had been lowered in some majority
> black districts -- although not to the point of making them
> minority-black. Had VA drawn a map in which majority-black
> constituencies had become coalition districts, less than 50 percent
> minority -- that would have been worth a heads-up.
>
> Abby
>
> Abigail Thernstrom
> Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Adjunct Scholar, American
> Enterprise Institute www.thernstrom.com<http://www.thernstrom.com>
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:49 PM, David Becker wrote:
>
>
> For the record, it's not accurate to state that "the VRARA ...
> [blocked the] possibility [of reducing black vote to under 50
> percent]. Since at least the 90s, 50 percent has not been a black
> line rule in assessing ability to elect under Section 5. While it's
> relevant to the analysis, and it may be more difficult to demonstrate
> ability to elect if percentages fall below 50, there are districts
> where the DOJ has not objected where the minority percentage in one or
> more of the significant measurements (VAP, CVAP, REG) has dipped below
> 50, so long as ability to elect has been maintained (usually through
> reliable and consistent crossover voting). There were such districts
> in the 2001 Georgia statewide legislative plans, for instance.
>
>
> David J. Becker
> Project Director, Election Initiatives The Pew Center on the States
> 901 E Street NW | 10th Floor
> Washington, DC 20004
> p: 202.552.2136 | f: 202.552.2299
> e: dbecker at pewtrusts.org<mailto:dbecker at pewtrusts.org> |
> www.pewtrusts.org <http://www.pewtrusts.org>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-boun
> ces at department-lists.uci.edu
> > [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf
> Of Abigail Thernstrom
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:46 PM
> To: Michael McDonald
> Cc: 'Election Law'
> Subject: Re: [EL] VA legislative plans precleared
>
>
> Gee, Michael, I don't see the significance here. Would be
> noteworthy if DOJ had precleared districts in which the black vote had
> been reduced to under 50 percent. But of course the VRARA superceded
> Ashcroft, blocking that possibility. And the new guidelines, tracking
> the 2006 statutory language, explicitly state: "Any change affecting
> voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing
> the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race,
> color, or membership in a language minority group to elect their
> preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote
> within the meaning of section 5."
>
> DOJ stuck to the letter of the revised statute and new
> regs.
>
> Sorry for the delay in answer; Just catching up on my
> email.
>
> Abby
>
> Abigail Thernstrom
> Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Adjunct Scholar, American
> Enterprise Institute www.thernstrom.com<http://www.thernstrom.com>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Michael McDonald wrote:
>
>
> Both Virginia legislative plans were pre-cleared this afternoon by
> DOJ. This is significant because the Democratic state Senate plan
> reduced the African-American voting-age population of 3 voting rights
> districts (but kept them above 50%).
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior
> Fellow, Brookings Institution
>
> Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu> 4400 University
> Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
View list directory