[EL] Big DOJ move against Texas in voting rights suit

[George Korbel]

I presume doj will act.


On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:22 PM, "Pildes, Rick" <pildesr at exchange.law.nyu.edu> wrote:

> Rick:  You want to make an urgent correction.  This is not DOJ acting – at least not the motion you attached.  This is from the intervenor groups.  They say DOJ hasn’t taken a position yet.  Unless I am missing something, you’ll want to fix this right away.
>  
> Rick
>  
> 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, July 03, 2013 1:18 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] Big DOJ move against Texas in voting rights suit
>  
> Major Voting Rights Development: DOJ Seeks to Have Texas Bailed In Under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act
> 
> Posted on July 3, 2013 10:16 am by Rick Hasen
> This just-filed DOJ motion 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.)
> 
> <image001.png>
> Posted in redistricting, Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act | 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130703/5d669efb/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/20130703/5d669efb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election