[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/10/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jul 10 08:41:01 PDT 2013
Justice Ginsburg's Odd Racial Gerrymandering Statement in the Shelby
County Decision <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52774>
Posted on July 10, 2013 8:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52774> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Over the next week or so, I plan to highlight some interesting but less
obvious points about the Supreme Court's decision in the /Shelby County/
case. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> I
briefly mention these points in my just-posted APSA draft, Shelby County
and the Illusion of Minimalism
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>. Today's
post concerns something odd I saw in Justice Ginsburg's dissent. From my
draft at fn. 140:
The dissenting opinion also contains a major irony. Justice Ginsburg
explains that with "first generation barriers" to the right to vote
(such as literacy tests) eliminated, Section 5 now protects against
"second generation barriers," such as the use of at-large elections
rather than legislative districts to dilute minority voting
strengths. Yet the first of these second-generation barriers Justice
Ginsburg lists is "racial gerrymandering." /Shelby County, /at *22
(dissenting opinion) ("Second-generation barriers come in various
forms. One of the blockages is racial gerrymandering, the redrawing
of legislative districts in an 'effort to segregate the races for
purposes of voting.'"). /Shaw v. Reno/, 509 US 630 (1993) first
recognized the racial gerrymander cause of action as an equal
protection claim distinct from a vote dilution claim. Justice
Ginsburg and the other liberals dissented in /Shaw/, and they have
continued to dissent from this line of cases. Adding to the irony,
in these cases it appears that covered jurisdictions drew lines
which constituted "racial gerrymanders" precisely to /comply/ with
the Department of Justice's objections under a strong reading of
section 5 of the VRA. See Daniel Hays Lowenstein, /You Don't Have to
Be a Liberal to Hate the Racial Gerrymandering Cases/, 50 Stan L Rev
779 (1998). Whatever one can say of the merits of Section 5, it is
hard to believe that its continuation would minimize the number of
successful racial gerrymandering claims.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52774&title=Justice%20Ginsburg%E2%80%99s%20Odd%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%20Statement%20in%20the%20Shelby%20County%20Decision&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"Gay Couples Could Face Different Campaign Money Rules Across
States" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52771>
Posted on July 10, 2013 8:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52771> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roll Call reports
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/gay-couples-could-face-different-fec-guidelines-in-different-states/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52771&title=%E2%80%9CGay%20Couples%20Could%20Face%20Different%20Campaign%20Money%20Rules%20Across%20States%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Pro-Hillary super PAC signs up top Obama aides"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52768>
Posted on July 10, 2013 8:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52768> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/10/pro-hillary-super-pac-signs-up-top-obama-aides/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52768&title=%E2%80%9CPro-Hillary%20super%20PAC%20signs%20up%20top%20Obama%20aides%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"McDonnell's corporation, wife allegedly benefited from $120,000
more from donor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52765>
Posted on July 9, 2013 8:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52765> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Oh boy
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnells-corporation-wife-benefited-from-120000-more-from-donor-sources-say/2013/07/09/79b29880-e5b4-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52765&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%E2%80%99s%20corporation%2C%20wife%20allegedly%20benefited%20from%20%24120%2C000%20more%20from%20donor%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics investigations
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42> | Comments Off
Revisiting Reuters Opinion Series on "If the Court Strikes Section
5? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52761>
Posted on July 9, 2013 4:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52761> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Back in February I organized an online symposium on what Congress should
do if the Court struck section 5. It struck section 4, not 5 (though
that's a distinction without a difference
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>these
days). In any case, here are links to the various pieces, now that
Congress is in the position to respond to the /Shelby County /cecision:
If the court strikes down Section 5
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/if-the-court-strikes-section-5-of-voting-rights-act/>
Richard Hasen says that if the Supreme Court kills Section 5, which
insures that states or jurisdictions with a history of voting
discrimination need federal approval for any changes in election law,
the big question will be: What comes next? Reuters has invited leading
academics who focus on voting rights and election law to participate in
a forum on this important issue Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/if-the-court-strikes-section-5-of-voting-rights-act/>
Who controls Voting Rights?
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/26/who-controls-voting-rights/>
Richard Hasen asks why the decision on Section 5 is for the Supreme
Court to make and not the political branches of government. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/26/who-controls-voting-rights/>
Making sure race is considered
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/25/making-sure-race-is-considered/>
Janai S. Nelson says that Section 5 makes sure that race, the elephant
in the room for much of U.S. election law, is discussed openly and
thoroughly. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/25/making-sure-race-is-considered/>
The partisan politics of election laws
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/>
Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer say that If the court does
strike down Section 5 it will give Congress an opportunity to update the
act for the 21st century. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/>
The strong case for keeping Section 5
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/>
Morgan Kousser writes that five-sixths or more of the cases of proven
election discrimination from 1957 through 2013 have taken place in
jurisdictions subject to Section 5 oversight. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/>
What of congressional power over voting?
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/12/what-of-congressional-power-over-voting/>
Franita Tolson says that if the Supreme Court invalidates Section 5 it
would be a clear rejection of broad congressional authority to regulate
state and federal elections. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/12/what-of-congressional-power-over-voting/>
Watch out in the covered jurisdictions
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/>
Michael Pitts says that on the local level, there could be widespread
retrogression -- from redistricting plans that end 'safe' districts to
cities annexing suburban white populations to reduce minority voters'
influence. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/>
A signal it's time to change the court
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/04/a-signal-its-time-to-change-the-court/>
Justin Levitt believes that Section 5 does not demand utopia. It asks
only that new laws not make things worse. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/04/a-signal-its-time-to-change-the-court/>
Opting into the Voting Rights Act
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/opting-into-the-voting-rights-act/>
Heather Gerken says that other voting protections against racial
discrimination are too costly and cumbersome to protect minorities from
tactics that Section 5 now deters. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/opting-into-the-voting-rights-act/>
Why Section 5 survives
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/why-section-5-survives/>
Abigail Thernstrom wonders if Justice Anthony Kennedy, the pivotal vote,
wants banner headlines that read, "Court declares Voting Rights Act
unconstitutional"? Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/why-section-5-survives/>
The next Voting Rights Act
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/the-next-voting-rights-act/>
Spencer Overton says that we need new protections. The U.S. is near the
bottom of advanced democracies in voter participation. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/the-next-voting-rights-act/>
Reform the oversight formula
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/delegate-the-oversight-formula/>
Christopher Elmendorf says that the Justice Department or a new panel
should be responsible for deciding which states are subject to review.
Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/delegate-the-oversight-formula/>
Focus on new legislative approach
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/focus-on-new-legislative-approach/>
Richard Pildes says that stepping outside the Section 5 template and
embracing a model with universal protections for the right to vote may
be far more effective. Commentary
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/30/focus-on-new-legislative-approach/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52761&title=Revisiting%20Reuters%20Opinion%20Series%20on%20%E2%80%9CIf%20the%20Court%20Strikes%20Section%205%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
Congressman Frank Wolf, Who Voted for 2006 Voting Rights
Reauthorization, Happy with End of Preclearance for Virginia
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52758>
Posted on July 9, 2013 4:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52758> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sun Gazette
<http://www.sungazette.net/mclean-greatfalls-vienna-oakton/news/u-s-rep-wolf-league-of-women-voters-assess-voting/article_376fda9c-e702-11e2-ab21-0019bb2963f4.html>:
But Wolf, who said he was the only member of Virginia's delegation
to vote for reauthorizing the act in 1982, said the United States
has changed in the intervening decades.
"I don't think there's discrimination now in state of Virginia,"
Wolf said. "I think in the areas I represent, it's totally honest
and ethical. It's more open and honest than in many areas of the
country, including some big cities. I think the act has been
successful."
Virginia localities now will not have to undergo unnecessary steps
when making minor election-related decisions, Wolf said.
"The last couple of years, it's been a work product for lawyers," he
said of the extra federal oversight. "It's been costly and there's
been a lot of delay."
Makes me wonder why he voted for it in 2006. Or not.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52758&title=Congressman%20Frank%20Wolf%2C%20Who%20Voted%20for%202006%20Voting%20Rights%20Reauthorization%2C%20Happy%20with%20End%20of%20Preclearance%20for%20Virginia&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"Vital Statistics on Congress" Now Online
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52755>
Posted on July 9, 2013 2:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52755> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kudos to Brookings and AEI for this.
<http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrookingsInst&utm_content=BrookingsInst>
Free to boot!
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52755&title=%E2%80%9CVital%20Statistics%20on%20Congress%E2%80%9D%20Now%20Online&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, pedagogy
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23> | Comments Off
"Will Eliot Spitzer Even Get on the Ballot?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52752>
Posted on July 9, 2013 1:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52752> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BuzzFeed reports
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/will-eliot-spitzer-even-get-on-the-ballot>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52752&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Eliot%20Spitzer%20Even%20Get%20on%20the%20Ballot%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, petition
signature gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> | Comments Off
"The Supreme Court vs. the Voter: In past decade, it has turned its
back on protecting the franchise, especially for the poor,
minorities." <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52749>
Posted on July 9, 2013 1:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52749> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Leon Friedman has written this NLJ oped.
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202609568775&thepage=1>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52749&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20vs.%20the%20Voter%3A%20In%20past%20decade%2C%20it%20has%20turned%20its%20back%20on%20protecting%20the%20franchise%2C%20especially%20for%20the%20poor%2C%20minorities.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
If You Want to Follow ELB on Facebook....
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52746>
Posted on July 9, 2013 12:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52746> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have now fixed it so that the first 140 characters of ELB blog posts
will appear on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Election-Law-Blog/166037433418743> for
further clicking through if desired. I had not realized this was
disabled for the last year! (I'm not a regular Facebook user)
You can also find me on Twitter <https://twitter.com/rickhasen>.
Thanks for reading!
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52746&title=If%20You%20Want%20to%20Follow%20ELB%20on%20Facebook%E2%80%A6.&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"Watchdogs Urge FEC to Reject Democratic Governors Association
Proposal to Violate Soft Money Ban"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52743>
Posted on July 9, 2013 11:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52743> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CLC press release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2185:july-9-2013-watchdogs-urge-fec-to-reject-democratic-governors-association-proposal-to-violate-soft-money-ban-&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52743&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%20Urge%20FEC%20to%20Reject%20Democratic%20Governors%20Association%20Proposal%20to%20Violate%20Soft%20Money%20Ban%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Registration Now Open for UCI Law Supreme Court Term in Review
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51257>
Posted on July 9, 2013 10:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51257> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[Bumping to the top]
Here <http://www.law.uci.edu/events/supreme_court_term_review_2013.html>:
3rd Annual
Supreme Court Term
in Review
/Friday, July 19, 2013 . 12:00 -- 1:30 P.M. /
/UCI Student Center, Crystal Cove Auditorium/ (Map)
<http://law.uci.edu/directions.html>
This exciting and entertaining program reviews the Supreme Court's key
cases decided in the October 2012 term, with an all-star panel of
Supreme Court journalists and academics.
Panelists
* Mario Barnes <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_m_barnes.html>,
UCI Law
* Joan Biskupic <http://blogs.reuters.com/joan-biskupic/>, Reuters
* Erwin Chemerinsky
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_e_chemerinsky.html>, UCI Law
* Miguel Estrada <http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/mestrada>, Gibson
Dunn (DC office)
* Adam Liptak <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html>, New
York Times
* Doug NeJaime
<http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/nejaimedouglas/>,
UCI Law (beginning July 1)
* Moderated by Rick Hasen
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html>, UCI Law
CLE credit will be available. The event will also be webcast, with
viewers able to submit questions via Twitter, using the hash tag
*#ucilawscotus* at the end of your question.
*Registration is now open. Click here to register
<https://ucisl.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/SupremeCourtTerminReview2013/tabid/470876/Default.aspx>.
*//
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51257&title=Registration%20Now%20Open%20for%20UCI%20Law%20Supreme%20Court%20Term%20in%20Review&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130710/317741e5/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/20130710/317741e5/attachment.png>
View list directory