[EL] Electoral college changes and section 5
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Fri Jan 25 07:22:21 PST 2013
Tied to this point is the fact that selection of U.S. Senators was done by
state legislatures until the 20th century politicized state legislative
elections as well. The famed Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were not
involved in a direct election -- it was party of their campaign to have
their party win majorities in the Illinois state legislature.
Rob Richie
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> I agree that there are Section 5 questions to be addressed with the
> Virginia
> electoral college rule change. With (still) Republican Lt. Gov. Bolling --
> the tie-breaking member of the evenly divided Senate -- yet to take a
> public
> stand, I am not sure if it will pass the Senate.
>
> The Post reported that Bolling met with Republicans two weeks before
> Monday’s surprise re-redistricting, and said that he would not support it.
> This is why Republicans needed to pass it without his support. That may
> give
> some hope to Democrats that he will reject the electoral college bill.
> However, while Bolling opposed the re-redistricting, he did not proactively
> try to stop it by alerting Democrats that a bill was imminent.
>
> The strongest political case against the electoral college bill is that it
> is not in state legislators’ self-interest. Near the founding, it was
> common
> practice for state legislatures to change the electoral college allocation
> laws or select the electors themselves. The state legislative elections
> became tantamount to the presidential election. What these state
> legislators
> may learn is that the national political parties and presidential campaigns
> are going to become heavily invested in their state legislative elections,
> to the detriment of state legislators’ careers and to the detriment of
> state
> legislative campaigns that should rightly be focused on state issues, not
> national issues. The campaign effect would be particularly acute in
> Virginia, where we have odd-numbered year elections with typically low
> voter
> turnout.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rob
> Richie
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:05 AM
> To: Gaddie, Ronald K.
> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Electoral college changes and section 5
>
> One important aspect of Sen. Carrico's proposal in Virginia is the
> statewide
> vote would become completely meaningless -- that is, even the two statewide
> electors would go to the candidate who wins the most DISTRICTS in the state
> rather than the most VOTES. So that means any district with a distinct tilt
> -- that is, the Democratic-leaning urban area districts with a
> disproportionate share of racial minorities and the Republican-leaning
> rural
> districts that Carrico professes to care about --- would have as
> meaningless
> a role in every presidential election as the 35 spectator states that have
> been ignored by all major party presidential candidates for at least three
> straight general election cycles (with not a one likely to be a
> battleground
> in 2016 either).
>
> So most African Americans in Virginia would go from participating in
> closely
> contested swing state to being sure of getting no attention. (To underscore
> that lack of attention, those 35 spectator states referenced above all
> received less than one percent of the attention in ad dollars and campaign
> events that their population warranted. This includes almost all small
> population states.)
>
> The Washington Post's lead story today was on these Electoral College
> plans,
> fyi. See:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-virginia-other-states-
>
> seeking-electoral-college-changes/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228
> e55e7_print.html
>
> Rob
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu>
> wrote:
> Is an elector a candidate of choice? Not a presidential candidate, but an
> elector? This is where we might start in order to pursue a voting
> rights-based remedy.
>
>
> Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
> Professor of Political Science
> Editor, Social Science Quarterly
> The University of Oklahoma
> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
> Norman, OK 73019-2001
> Phone 405-325-4989
> Fax 405-325-0718
> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
> http://socialsciencequarterly.org
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen
> [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:53 AM
> To: Justin Levitt
> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Electoral college changes and section 5
>
> Justin--
> What if Congress defended such a statute as a means of preventing the
> dilution of minority voting power in presidential elections---the same
> question which would be presented to DOJ if Virginia moved from winner take
> all to districted allocation of electoral college votes?
> Rick
> On 1/24/13 10:20 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> Depends entirely on the asserted source of Congressional power.
>
> With no articulated connection to race, it's tough for me to see this as an
> exercise of 15th Amd. power. And with no 14th Amd. due process right for
> voters to vote on Presidential electors unless states wish them to (most
> recently articulated in Bush v. Gore), it's tough for me to see this as an
> exercise of 14th Amd. power. And with no connection to elections for
> Senators and Representatives, it's tough for me to see this as an exercise
> of power under Article I, section 4.
>
> So unless there's a Congressional power I don't spot, I think such a
> statute
> is unconstitutional. But the primary reason isn't state autonomy to choose
> electors -- the reason is that Congress doesn't have the enumerated power
> to
> enact such a statute.
>
> Justin
>
> On 1/24/2013 11:13 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> How would you treat a statute in which Congress bars state legislatures
> from
> choosing their electors directly and requires elections open to all voters
> qualified to vote in state elections?
>
> On 1/24/2013 7:07 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> (With apologies for the length)
>
> Mark's argument still seems like it depends on a remarkably novel
> constriction of Congressional enforcement authority, even well beyond the
> faultlines of the current fight over enforcement authority.
>
> To be clear (and to be responsive to Rick's argument about the
> Bullock/Gaddie piece), I think there would be a legitimate constitutional
> reason to hesitate if Congress used its Article I power to dictate how the
> states chose their electors. (Say, a law requiring electors to be chosen
> in
> a Super-Bowl-style playoff system, in order to sell off television rights
> and thereby promote interstate commerce.)
>
> But the question about VRA preclearance is about 15th (also 14th, but it's
> an easier 15th Amendment case) Amendment enforcement power, power expressly
> granted to Congress by the Constitution, as a limit on everything in
> Article
> II (and Article I). If the enforcement power of the 15th Amendment means
> anything, it's a grant to Congress of the power to police state regulations
> of the franchise based on race.
>
> There are three ways in which the states regulate elections: choosing their
> own state officials, choosing Presidential electors, and choosing members
> of
> Congress. Congress has power under Article I, section 4 to regulate
> Congressional elections as they please, so there's no need to invoke 15th
> Amd. enforcement authority in that circumstance. That leaves state
> officials and Presidential electors. It can't be that the Constitution
> grants more deference to states in choosing Presidential electors (the
> "plenary" power) than it does to states in choosing their own officials.
> States had the power to choose their own officials well before the
> Constitution existed; Presidential electors only come into being with the
> Constitution. So if anything, a 15th Amendment grant of power to Congress
> to prevent the states from abridging the right to vote based on race has to
> either give Congress just as much power to regulate the Presidential
> elector
> process as the state official process, or more power to regulate the
> Presidential elector process. Presidential elector selection can't be
> "specially" protected from 15th Amd. enforcement measures (e.g., Mark's
> theory that power shouldn't be read broadly "here"). I don't understand a
> theory attempting to preserve state autonomy under federalism where a state
> has more freedom to choose Presidential electors than to choose their own
> officials.
>
> Which brings us to the scope of the 15th Amd. enforcement authority. In
> Katzenbach, the Court told us that this power is governed by rational basis
> review. There's a fight that we'll have answered soon about whether
> Boerne
> applies to the 15th Amd. as well (see the argument in the lower court
> decisions in NAMUDNO and Shelby County). (I happen to think that it
> shouldn't -- it makes sense that 14th Amd. enforcement power would be broad
> and shallow, and that 15th Amd. power would be narrow and deep.)
>
> But the argument below goes significantly further than applying Boerne to
> the 15th Amd. In the permissive version, it seems to be that enforcement
> authority under the 15th Amd. should itself be strictly scrutinized (a
> least
> restrictive means test), which is a deeply odd way to conceive of an
> affirmative constitutional grant of power, akin to saying that the Court
> should strictly scrutinize any use of the Commerce power. Put differently:
> there isn't an unusual need to watch out for federalism costs in enforcing
> the 15th Amendment, because the only circumstances for Congress to
> "enforce"
> the 15th Amd. at all involve limitations on state regulations of the
> franchise. The 15th Amendment enforcement power was specifically designed
> to intrude on normal state prerogatives, every single time it's exercised.
>
> And the least permissive version of the argument below is that
> Congressional
> enforcement power for the 15th Amendment has no content beyond the
> affirmative mandates of the 15th Amendment itself. That is, Congressional
> power amounts to passing section 1983, and then getting out of the way. In
> a world that gave us the Slaughterhouse Case reading of the privileges or
> immunities clause, that's not an unthinkable possibility -- but it is a
> rather striking departure from the conception of the enforcement power I
> understand the Court to have articulated.
>
> So I don't think that this argument can turn on special limits on a
> Constitutional grant of power in the special circumstance of choosing
> Presidential electors -- because that has to be less special than the only
> other circumstance (choosing state officials) in which the 15th Amendment
> enforcement power has any content. If preclearance is a valid exercise of
> Congressional authority as applied to states regulating their state
> elections, it has to be a valid exercise of authority as applied to states
> choosing their Presidential electors.
>
> Justin
>
>
>
> On 1/24/2013 12:59 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
> Of course, the state legislature’s exercise of its plenary power under
> Article II in the original Constitution is subject to the requirements of
> the amendments to the Constitution, including the 14th and 15th. A state
> obviously would violate the 15th Am. by prohibiting African Americans from
> voting in presidential elections.
>
> This was a point that was made repeatedly during the Bush v. Gore
> controversy by those of us who thought that the Florida S. Ct. could not
> use
> the state constitution to limit the state legislature’s choice of the
> manner
> by which the state appoints its presidential electors. Of course the
> amendments to the U.S. Constitution place limits on what the state
> legislature may do.
>
> On the other hand, it is not clear that Congress’s power to enforce the
> 14th
> and 15th Amendments by reaching actions that do not themselves violate the
> Constitution should be read broadly here. We are dealing with a state
> legislature’s exercise of a power explicitly granted to the legislature by
> the Constitution, a power that has been understood to grant great
> discretion
> to the state legislature. In such a setting, there may have to be a
> stronger
> showing of a need for prophylactic measures because of the serious
> federalism issues at stake – serious issues with their roots in the
> explicit
> grant of authority by the US Constitution to the state legislatures. Note
> also that in the particular case in which the legislature of a state that
> is
> subject to preclearance chooses to change from an at-large election of
> electors to a congressional district approach, the creation of the
> districts
> would have been subject to preclearance; to then require preclearance
> before
> a state could move to a system based on those districts could easily be
> seen
> as an overreach. In effect, preclearance as to the districts would be a
> less
> restrictive means of preventing violations of the 14th and 15th Amendments
> (that is, a means that is less restrictive of the state legislature’s
> exercise of its plenary power).
>
> If I were defending the preclearance requirements before the Supreme Court,
> I’d think long and hard before answering a Justice’s question in the
> affirmative, if the question was whether a state would have to ask federal
> permission to change to a district approach for appointment of electors.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
>
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Derek
> Muller
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:28 PM
> To: Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] Electoral college changes and section 5
>
> I'm not sure if it was simply prophylactic (which means it cannot answer
> the
> theoretical question), but, as a matter of recent practice, California did
> submit its enactment of the National Popular Vote to the Department of
> Justice for preclearance:
>
> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/CA-Herren-Letter-2012-1-13-DOJ-
> VRA-Preclearance.pdf
>
> Derek
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Justin Levitt <jml269 at connect.yale.edu>
> wrote:
> Isn't it clear that the 14th and 15th Amendments would preclude a state
> legislature from using its "plenary" power to decide that it would hold a
> popular election for presidential electors with only white voters eligible
> to participate? Those Amendments, written after Article II and a
> substantial shift in federal/state power, substantively modify the exercise
> of all the powers in the original constitution.
>
> By the same logic, a statute validly passed under Congress's power to
> enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments has to be a valid limitation on
> "plenary" power.
>
> It's the same logic as Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), allowing
> valid exercise of 14th Amendment enforcement power to override 11th
> Amendment sovereign immunity. No?
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Visting Associate Professor of Law
> Yale Law School
> 203-432-2366
> justin.levitt at yale.edu
> ssrn.com/author=698321
> On 1/23/2013 7:48 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> Someone asked me what would happen if Virginia changes its method for
> allocating electoral college votes. Would such a change be subject to
> preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? Or, given the
> state legislature's plenary power to set the rules for the allocation of
> electoral college votes as provided for in Art. II of the Constitution,
> is the preclearance requirement not applicable or unconstitutional as
> applied to electoral college allocations?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
> to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130125/4f95e0a5/attachment.html>
View list directory