[EL] DOJ Response in Texas vs. USA, Holder (Redistricting)

[Gerry Hebert]

Sam, I agree with you that if Texas had made an administrative
submission to the United States Attorney General and DOJ
administratively precleared the map over my (or anyone else's
objection), I think our only recourse would be to file a Section 2 or
constitutional challenge to the precleared map.  DOJ's administrative
actions are unreviewable, as I read Morris v. Gressette.   Gerry

 

J. Gerald Hebert
Executive Director & Director of Litigation
Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 736-2200 ext. 12 (office)
(202) 736-2222 (fax)

Sign up for The Campaign Legal Center Blog at:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/signup.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Bagenstos [mailto:sbagen at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:16 PM
To: Gerry Hebert
Cc: Vince Leibowitz; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] DOJ Response in Texas vs. USA, Holder (Redistricting)

 

Gerry is right.  I think the confusion rests on this:  If the state had
made a proper request for *administrative* preclearance, the DOJ could
preclear the senate and BOE plans by its own action, regardless of what
the defendant-intervenors think.  (I take Gerry as questioning that
proposition, as I know some defendant-intervenors have in these cases in
the past.  But I don't really think it's open to question as a matter of
law.  Of course, I could be misreading Gerry.)  But I read the answer
filed by the DOJ today (see para. 9) as saying that the state never made
a proper administrative preclearance submission, so that the judicial
preclearance action is the only game in town.  And the state's request
for judicial preclearance (of the state senate or BOE *or* the state
house and federal house plans) cannot be resolved without an order of
the court.  So the answer filed today is not a grant or denial of
preclearance; it's a statement of the DOJ's position in the ongoing
preclearance litigation.

 

 

Samuel R. Bagenstos

Professor of Law

University of Michigan Law School

625 S. State St.

Ann Arbor, MI  48109

sambagen at umich.edu

http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411

 





 

On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Gerry Hebert wrote:





It does not constitute clearance of the TX state senate map or the State
Board of Education maps.  As DOJ correctly notes in its answer, "The
proposed Senate plan [and State Board of Education plan] has no force or
effect unless and until this Court determines that the plan meets the
requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."  In a Section 5
declaratory judgment action where there are defendant-intervenors who
oppose preclearance, as there are here, the issue of preclearance of the
state senate map is still an open question regardless of DOJ's position.
Gerry Hebert

 

 

J. Gerald Hebert
Executive Director & Director of Litigation
Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 736-2200 ext. 12 (office)
(202) 736-2222 (fax)

Sign up for The Campaign Legal Center Blog at:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/signup.html

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf OfVince
Leibowitz
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 3:23 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] DOJ Response in Texas vs. USA, Holder (Redistricting)

 

See attached. I have not had the opportunity to scan it in full yet, but
several sources in Texas are reporting that this constitutes "clearance"
for the state senate and state board of education maps, and that
insufficient evidence existed for the Congressional and state house maps
to be cleared. 
-- 
_______________________________
Vince Leibowitz
Principal Consultant
The Dawn Group
vince.leibowitz at gmail.com
vince at dgtexas.com
DGTexas.com
512.705.7001 (m)
512.861.2370 (f)
512.318.2432 (o)

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by
work-product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the named
addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email.
Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this
email by mistake and delete this email from your system. 

_______________________________________________
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/20110919/d58634f4/attachment.html>