[EL] early reports from oral argument in Shelby County

Wed Feb 27 09:36:02 PST 2013

Once again it seems like there are five votes to strike down Section 5.  However, we've been here before in NAMUDNO where after the oral argument all the smart money seemed to be moving in the direction of the statute being struck down.  Yet it didn't happen.  So I'm wondering if there are any folks on the list who attended both the NAMUDNO argument and today's argument and can give a comparison as to whether the tenor of today's argument was that much different than the one held in NAMUDNO.

Best,
Mike

Michael J. Pitts
Professor of Law & Dean's Fellow
Chair, Faculty Recruitment Committee
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
530 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-278-9155
mjpitts at iupui.edu
Webpage: http://indylaw.indiana.edu/people/profile.cfm?Id=293

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:25 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] early reports from oral argument in Shelby County

Reports from Oral Argument Trickle In: ALL Look Bad for Section 5<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47803>
Posted on February 27, 2013 9:24 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47803> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NBC News<http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/27/17118509-key-provisions-of-voting-rights-act-appear-in-jeopardy-after-high-court-argument?lite>: NBC's Pete Williams reported after the oral argument, "I think it's a safe prediction to say that the Voting Rights Act, as it now stands, is not going to survive. The question is: how far will the Supreme Court go in striking parts of it down?"

Bloomberg<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/voting-rights-act-questioned-as-top-court-weighs-rollback.html>: "The skeptics today included the likely swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy<http://topics.bloomberg.com/anthony-kennedy/>, who faulted Congress for relying on a decades- old formula for determining which states were covered. Kennedy said if Congress is going to "single out" some states, "it should do it by name."

AP<http://www.chron.com/news/article/Voting-rights-law-gets-Supreme-Court-challenge-4311691.php>: Chief Justice John Roberts<http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fpolitics&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Chief+Justice+John+Roberts%22> asked the government's top Supreme Court lawyer whether the Obama administration thinks Southerners "are more racist than citizens in the North." The answer from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli<http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fpolitics&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Donald+Verrilli%22> was no.

Reuters<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-usa-court-voting-argumentbre91q0vm-20130227,0,3015465.story>: Conservatives on the Supreme Court expressed strong doubts about the validity of a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signaling that there could be a majority to strike down the heart of the landmark law. Justice Anthony Kennedy<http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/judges/anthony-kennedy-PEPLT00008042.topic>, the court's swing vote on racial issues, said that "times change" when weighing the provision that requires strict oversight of election laws in nine mainly Southern states.

MORE to come.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47803&title=Reports%20from%20Oral%20Argument%20Trickle%20In%3A%20ALL%20Look%20Bad%20for%20Section%205&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
If The Voting Rights Section 5 Falls....<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47800>
Posted on February 27, 2013 9:15 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47800> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

there will be an opening for Congress to pass some legislation, as public pressure will mount to do something in response to a Supreme Court decision.  I laid out the options<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/if-the-court-strikes-section-5-of-voting-rights-act/> for what Congress might do-one question is whether a new Voting Rights Act would be race based on election-administration based.  Lots of others weighed in on the question too at this Reuters symposium.<http://www.reuters.com/subjects/voting-rights>
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47800&title=If%20The%20Voting%20Rights%20Section%205%20Falls%E2%80%A6.&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | 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>

http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html

http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130227/5d12d5b7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130227/5d12d5b7/attachment.png>