[EL] Sleeper Case of the Year

[bzall at aol.com]

As I pointed out last week, I have a different view of this case, but it fits this discussion as well. 


The Court need not strike a mighty blow in reversing. It doesn't even have to address the Elections Clause at all. 


It need only look at the purposes of the NVRA. If there is, as the 9th Circuit opined, really only one "goal" (note the singular) -- making voter registration as easy as possible -- then the Court can uphold the 9th Circuit opinion, and find that the federal agency's interpretation is reasonable and thus enforceable. If, as many other courts, including the Supremes, have held, there are four (or at least two) goals (note the plural) enumerated in the statute -- “increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote,” “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) -- then the Court can simply say that the 9th Circuit's opinion, and that of the federal agency interpreting the statute, is not reasonable and cannot be sustained. Statutory interpretation. Courts must not "rubberstamp ... administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute." Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 464 U.S. 89, 97 (1983), quoting, NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291-292(1965).  


No challenge to federalism, and no earthshaking interpretation of the Elections Clause. 


It's a simple case: was the EAC correct in striking the balance where Congress intended it to be? If so, sustain it. If not, strike the 9th Circuit's opinion deferring to that interpretation. 


Barnaby Zall 
Of Counsel 
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP 
10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial) 
bzall at aol.com 
_____________________________________________________________ 
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice 

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including 
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties 
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
tax-related matter addressed herein. 
_____________________________________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu>
To: law-election <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Sleeper Case of the Year


Perhaps a ruling could be narrowly tailored to the Arizona circumstances,
but I think Rick is right that a ruling in favor of Arizona could have some
deep and perhaps unintended consequences. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/c2ce0dda/attachment.html>