[EL] Revising VRA Sec 3

[Michael P McDonald]

There has been elevated interest with Section 3 with the flurry of reporting around DOJ's filing requesting Texas be covered under Section 3 bail-in provisions. While some have expressed that this means Congress is less likely to act on revising the Section 4 coverage formula, I'm wondering if this means there might be greater interest in revising Section 3(c) bail-in. 

So what might be revised in Section 3?

1. Section 3 is different from Section 5 preclearance in that the implementing court retains jurisdiction over the preclearance-like provisions. Indeed, as I read it -- and I'd welcome reactions from those more intimate with the details -- even though DOJ reviews election changes, the court still retains final approval. The proviso statement seems to indicate that the court might only act in the case where DOJ approves a change. Does that mean court proceedings may then initiated, whereby intervenors can enter? Consider this example, not all that implausible given how events unfolded in Texas's Section 5 experience: Texas is covered under Section 3, Texas submits a redistricting plan to DOJ, DOJ approves, but the court does not agree with the DOJ assessment. What happens next? Does the court begin a hearing on the plan?

If I am correct in the Section 3 review procedure, it provides stronger review than Section 5 since a jurisdiction must always jump two hurdles, DOJ and the court, where Section 5 only requires one hurdle, DOJ or the court. Section 3 might be amended to be more consonant with the Section 5 language, where a jurisdiction has the option of submitting an election change to DOJ or the District Court of DC (or, perhaps, the original court ordering bail-in).

2. The scope of the election changes are at the discretion of the court. A revised Sec 3 might better define the scope. When combined with revised preclearance procedures in (1), perhaps all election changes could be covered, similar to Section 5. I could envision a bipartisan deal being struck here since revising the procedure might weaken Section 3, with revising the scope would strengthen it.

3. The duration of bail-in coverage is indeterminate, at the discretion of the court. Theoretically, a jurisdiction might find itself covered forever. A revised Section 3 might better articulate the conditions and procedures for bail-out under Section 3.

Again, I'd welcome thoughts from those on the list who have firsthand knowledge on how Section 3 works.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

phone:   703-993-4191 (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu               
web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject