[EL] more news 8/22/13

Thu Aug 22 12:45:30 PDT 2013

<http://electionlawblog.org/>

    Will DOJ Seek Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Texas Voter ID Case?
    Will It Get It? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54720>

Posted on August 22, 2013 12:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54720> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Remember this exchange from the oral argument 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf>in 
/Shelby County/?

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I --- I do think the evidence is very clear
    that Section --- that individual suits under Section 2 type
    litigation were just insufficient and that Section 5 was utterly
    necessary in 1965. No doubt about that.
    GENERAL VERRILLI: And I think it remains true -

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But with --- with a modern understanding of --- of
    the dangers of polling place changes, with prospective injunctions,
    with preliminary injunctions, it's not clear --- and --- and with
    the fact that the government itself can commence these suits, it's
    not clear to me that there's that much difference in a Section 2
    suit now and preclearance. I may be wrong about that. I don't have
    statistics for it. That's why we're asking.
    GENERAL VERRILLI: I --- I don't --- I don't really think that that
    conclusion follows. I think these under the --- there are thousands
    and thousands of these under-the-radar screen changes, the polling
    places and registration techniques, et cetera. And in most of those
    I submit, Your Honor, the --- the cost-benefit ratio is going to be,
    given the cost of this litigation, which one of the --- one of the
    reasons Katzenbach said Section 5 was necessary, is going to tilt
    strongly against bringing these suits.Even with respect to the big
    ticket items, the big redistrictings, I think the logic Katzenbach
    holds in that those suits are extremely expensive and they typically
    result in after-the-fact litigation.
    Now, it is true, and the Petitioners raised the notion that there
    could be a preliminary injunction, but I really think the
    Petitioner's argument that Section 2 is a satisfactory and complete
    substitute for Section 5 rests entirely on their ability to
    demonstrate that preliminary injunctions can do comparable work to
    what Section 5 does. They haven't made any effort to do that. And
    while I don't have statistics for you, I can tell you that the Civil
    Rights Division tells me that it's their understanding that in fewer
    than one-quarter of ultimately successful Section 2 suits was there
    a preliminary injunction issued.

    So I don't think that there's a basis, certainly given the weighty
    question before this Court of the constitutionality of this law, to
    the extent the argument is that Section 2 is a valid substitute for
    Section 5, I just don't think that the --- that the Petitioners have
    given the Court anything that allows the Court to reach that
    conclusion and of course...

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54720&title=Will%20DOJ%20Seek%20Preliminary%20Injunctive%20Relief%20in%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Case%3F%20Will%20It%20Get%20It%3F&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "Voting Wars Redux in Texas" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54717>

Posted on August 22, 2013 12:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54717> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CJR 
<http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/voting_wars_redux_in_texas.php?page=all> 
on resources for journalists.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54717&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Wars%20Redux%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | 
Comments Off

    Question of the Day: Is Attack on VRA Section 2 Next?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54714>

Posted on August 22, 2013 12:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54714> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

"Wonder if Texas will argue if sec[tion] 2 is unconstitutional."

--Franita Tolson <https://twitter.com/ProfTolson/status/370622292617068544>

Indeed, this has been one of my main worries 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53094>about the next shoe 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53131>to drop 
<http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/19/conservatives-prepare-to-finish-off-the-voting-rights-act/>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54714&title=Question%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Is%20Attack%20on%20VRA%20Section%202%20Next%3F&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    Ari Berman on DOJ's Texas Moves <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54711>

Posted on August 22, 2013 11:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54711> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/175873/doj-texas-voter-suppression-will-not-stand#axzz2cj1ggB4c>, 
at /The Nation./

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54711&title=Ari%20Berman%20on%20DOJ%E2%80%99s%20Texas%20Moves&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "Was 2012 The Worst Year Ever for Voting Rights?"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54707>

Posted on August 22, 2013 10:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54707> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The /Daily Beast/ reports. 
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/was-2012-the-worst-year-ever-for-voting-rights.html>

Very good piece but terrible headline. Think of any year before 1965?s 
enactment of the Voting Rights Act, for example.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54707&title=%E2%80%9CWas%202012%20The%20Worst%20Year%20Ever%20for%20Voting%20Rights%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off

    The Present Day Ramifications of the Supreme Court's 1964 Decision
    on Designing Democratic Institutions in Colorado?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54702>

Posted on August 22, 2013 10:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54702> 
by Richard Pildes <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

For those of you who teach (as I do) the amazing one-vote, one-person 
case of /Lucas v. The Forty-Fourth General Assembly of the State of 
Colorado, /or for others wishing to understand urban v. rural conflicts 
in the design of democratic institutions, this Washington Post story 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/this-map-is-how-the-united-states-would-look-if-life-were-fair/?tid=pm_pop> 
today is worth a look --- with a nice graphic image.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54702&title=The%20Present%20Day%20Ramifications%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%201964%20Decision%20on%20Designing%20Democratic%20Institutions%20in%20Colorado%3F&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130822/81e6e436/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130822/81e6e436/attachment.png>