[EL] VRA Universality?

[Scarberry, Mark]

Congress does have power to determine the manner of holding of elections for the House. Assuming jurisdictions want to use the same procedures for all elections, then that could allow Congress to control these matters. Then there would be a question whether Congress could delegate its power to DOJ or the fed courts to decide whether to approve changes on a case by case basis.

Of course, that leaves open the political difficulties in enacting a universal VRA. 

In terms of practicality, I suppose the DOJ could have an internal policy of looking hard at clearance requests from certain geographical areas, and only looking hard at others if someone makes a credible allegation that the change would tend to harm vulnerable groups of voters.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Abigail Thernstrom
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:26 PM
To: Winkler, Adam
Cc: Election Law; Thomas J. Cares
Subject: Re: [EL] VRA Universality?


	It was discussed in 2006 and rejected as not doable.  Submissions from jurisdictions across the nation (large and small) would overwhelm DOJ's enforcement capacity.  Aside from the inevitable political resistance.

	AT

Abigail Thernstrom
Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute www.thernstrom.com


On Mar 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Winkler, Adam wrote:

> Wouldn't that fail the "congruence & proportionality" test of Boerne, assuming that 14th Amend enforcement clause test applies equally to 15th?
> 
> 
> Adam Winkler
> Professor of Law
> UCLA School of Law
> 
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:17 PM, "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at TomCares.com<mailto:Tom at TomCares.com>> wrote:
> 
> If it seems like a worthwhile topic for discussion, I would be interested in how list members would feel about just making the VRA universal - no more "lesser-sovereignty of Alabama."
> 
> I suppose that would be "lesser-sovereignty for everyone."
> 
> Nevertheless, perhaps the VRA and Section 5 are still practical, but the outdated formula actually is outdated (it's certainly outdated in the literal sense, but maybe in principle too).
> 
> Looking at what states like Pennsylvania and Ohio have tried to do recently, the disparity on this, between the south and other places, looks blurred, but the need for section 5 still appears clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Cares
> 
> 
> 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