[EL] early reports from oral argument in Shelby County

Wed Feb 27 09:54:36 PST 2013

    More Early Reports from Oral Argument
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47809>

Posted on February 27, 2013 9:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47809> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[Apologies if you have trouble getting through.  A link from HuffPo 
seems to have temporarily overwhelmed the servers.]

Adam Liptak NYT: 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html?hp>A 
central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, 
judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court's 
more conservative members. Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, 
which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal 
permission before changing voting procedures, a "perpetuation of racial 
entitlement." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical 
question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in 
the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must 
live "under the trusteeship of the United States government."

Ryan Reilly HuffPo 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html?1361986405>: 
Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial 
entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 
2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting 
against it. "Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. 
Who's going to vote against that?" Scalia wondered during oral argument 
in Shelby County v. Holder. He said that the Voting Rights Act had 
effectively created "black districts by law."

Sahil Kapur TPM: 
<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/roberts-are-citzens-in-the-south-more-racist-than-citizens-not-in-the-south.php?ref=fpa>Oral 
arguments showed a sharp divide along ideological lines and suggested 
that the conservative majority is strongly inclined to overturn Section 
5 of the half-century-old law.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47809&title=More%20Early%20Reports%20from%20Oral%20Argument&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
On 2/27/13 9:25 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     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
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
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://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/20130227/5e534506/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/20130227/5e534506/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20130227/5e534506/attachment-0001.png>