[EL] CORRECTION to my last post

[Rick Hasen]

    Major Voting Rights Development: Intervenors Seeks to Have Texas
    Bailed In Under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act -corrected
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569>

Posted on July 3, 2013 10:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This just-filed motion by Defendant Intervenors 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/241-motion-sec-3redux.pdf> in 
the Texas redistricting case is a BFD:

    The State of Texas is undoubtedly the prime example of why at least
    some pre-enforcement review under the Voting Rights Act is still
    necessary to vindicate the voting rights of minority citizens. Texas
    has engaged in persistent and intentional efforts to diminish the
    voting strength of voters of color, and to exclude them from the
    political process. If ever a jurisdiction was deserving of being
    affirmatively subjected to the preclearance requirement (being
    "bailed-in") under Section 3(c) of the Act, Texas is that jurisdiction.

I've been skeptical that Section 3 bail-in can be an effective 
substitute for section 5 preclearance (mainly because it is onerous to 
bring a section 3 suit and most local jurisdictions---where lots of 
mischief can take place, likely won't be subject to a bail-in action).  
But this is an important test case, and the finding of intentional race 
discrimination on Texas's part in the Texas redistricting case gives DOJ 
a fighting chance here.  (For more on how Congress could strengthen 
section 3 bail-in as part of a response to /Shelby County/, see Rick 
Pildes's excellent post <http://t.co/3UzRoJ9E8F>.)

*NOTE: This post has been corrected.  An earlier version said that this 
was a motion by DOJ.*

On 7/3/13 10:17 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     Major Voting Rights Development: DOJ Seeks to Have Texas Bailed In
>     Under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569>
>
> Posted on July 3, 2013 10:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569> 
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This just-filed DOJ motion 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/241-motion-sec-3redux.pdf> 
> in the Texas redistricting case is a BFD:
>
>     The State of Texas is undoubtedly the prime example of why at
>     least some pre-enforcement review under the Voting Rights Act is
>     still necessary to vindicate the voting rights of minority
>     citizens. Texas has engaged in persistent and intentional efforts
>     to diminish the voting strength of voters of color, and to exclude
>     them from the political process. If ever a jurisdiction was
>     deserving of being affirmatively subjected to the preclearance
>     requirement (being "bailed-in") under Section 3(c) of the Act,
>     Texas is that jurisdiction.
>
> I've been skeptical that Section 3 bail-in can be an effective 
> substitute for section 5 preclearance (mainly because it is onerous to 
> bring a section 3 suit and most local jurisdictions---where lots of 
> mischief can take place, likely won't be subject to a bail-in 
> action).  But this is an important test case, and the finding of 
> intentional race discrimination on Texas's part in the Texas 
> redistricting case gives DOJ a fighting chance here.  (For more on how 
> Congress could strengthen section 3 bail-in as part of a response to 
> /Shelby County/, see Rick Pildes's excellent post 
> <http://t.co/3UzRoJ9E8F>.)
>
> Share 
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52569&title=Major%20Voting%20Rights%20Development%3A%20DOJ%20Seeks%20to%20Have%20Texas%20Bailed%20In%20Under%20Section%203%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, 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

-- 
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/20130703/fdab2aea/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/20130703/fdab2aea/attachment.png>