[EL] Daily Beast headline
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Aug 22 16:50:39 PDT 2013
Apparently there is some aphorism in journalism that a headline asking a
question is almost always answered "no."
On 8/22/13 1:15 PM, Pildes, Rick wrote:
>
> I am not going to post this, but to help try to keep things in
> perspective, I want to point out on the list that it’s not just the
> headline in the /Daily Beast /story that lacks rational perspective.
> That story also quotes Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the
> Advancement Project <http://www.advancementproject.org/>, as saying
> that it was “harder for African-Americans to ‘vote, cast a ballot, and
> have a vote counted’ in 2012 than in any other recent election.
>
> Of course, African-American turnout in 2012 was the highest in modern
> American history. Indeed, for the first time, the African-American
> turnout rate exceeded the white turnout rate.
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/black-turnout-2012-state-by-state-maps/65053/.
> And keep in mind that early voting, for example, didn’t even exist in
> places like Ohio or Florida before 2004.
>
> I’m not going to post because it is true that there were more laws
> enacted in the two years or so leading up to the election than in
> previous recent elections that /could have/ made access more difficult
> for legitimate voters. Most of these laws were blocked or postponed;
> we do not know how much of an effect on turnout (of black or white)
> voters there would have been had all these laws been in effect (though
> newer voter ID laws were in effect in Georgia and Indiana). But it
> could not be more wrong to say that it was “harder for
> African-Americans to ‘vote, cast a ballot, and have a vote counted’ in
> 2012 than in any other recent election. Yes, we need to fix problems
> of long lines and many other unjustified obstacles. But statements
> like this one do a disservice to public discussion and are likely to
> get recycled if not flagged.
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:46 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] more news 8/22/13
>
>
> 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 inDepartment 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 inThe 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 inSupreme 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 inDepartment 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 inelection 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 inUncategorized <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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
--
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
http://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/ea6c27d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130822/ea6c27d8/attachment.png>
View list directory