[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/3/13 (section 2 and intentional discrimination)

Tue Sep 3 12:23:07 PDT 2013

As I  have written in The Causal Context of Disparate Vote Denial, here<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2180968> ,

“Section 2's "on account of race" standard to determine discrimination in voting has evolved from one of quasi-intent determined by a totality of the circumstances, to a short-lived intent requirement, followed by an enhanced disparate impact analysis, culminating in a more recent standard that simulates proximate cause.”

I argue that Section 2 requires a contextual analysis of discrimination that does not necessarily hinge on intentional discrimination, but considers a range of discriminatory impact evidence and inferences of discrimination, including implicit bias.

Best,

Janai

Janai S. Nelson
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship,
and Associate Director of the The Ronald H. Brown Center
for Civil Rights and Economic Development
St. John's University School of Law
8000 Utopia Parkway | Queens, NY 11439
Tel 718.990.2082 | Email janai.nelson at stjohns.edu<mailto:nelsonj1 at stjohns.edu>
Web Profile<http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/faculty/Profiles/Nelson> | SSRN Author Page<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=661178> | The Ronald H. Brown Center<http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/academics/centers/ronbrown> |
The St. John's University Law Faculty Blog<http://stjlawfaculty.org/> | Twitter @nelsonj1<mailto:a at culty>

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher S. Elmendorf
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:51 PM
To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/3/13 (section 2 and intentional discrimination)

I think it is a bit misleading to assert, as Rick does below, that Section 2 simply “does not” require proof of intentional discrimination.

It is true that no court (to my knowledge) has required plaintiffs in a Section 2 case to prove that the particular election law/practice they want changed was adopted/maintained for race-discriminatory reasons.  But most circuits nonetheless require plaintiffs to trace their injury to intentional discrimination by a conventional state actor or by the electorate.  Thus, in a challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law, plaintiffs might win by showing that the criminal law enforcement is infected with intentional racial discrimination, to which the (innocently motivated) disenfranchisement provision gives electoral effect.  But plaintiffs won’t win if they show disparate impact alone.  Courts and commentators often describe this as the “causation requirement” of Section 2.

I have defended a version of the Section 2 causation requirement<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1822642>, albeit one which rests of a relaxed standard of evidence.  But I would not be surprised if the current Supreme Court resolves the circuit split on Section 2 causation by holding that plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination in accordance with the conventional, more-likely-than-not evidentiary standard (and perhaps by a conventional state actor to boot).

So the “really odd” lede to Rosen’s story may well foretell where the law of section 2 is headed.

--Chris

Christopher S. Elmendorf
Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law
400 Mrak Hall Drive
Davis, CA 95616
530.752.5756

From: rick hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 9:45 PM
To: "law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>" <law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/3/13

“National Gun Debate Hits Close to Home in Colorado Recall Vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54969>
Posted on September 2, 2013 9:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54969>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/us/national-debate-on-gun-control-hits-home-in-colorado-recall.html?ref=politics&_r=0>: “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and the billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad have each donated hundreds of thousands of dollars. The National Rifle Association is buying political advertisements. New York’s junior senator sent a fund-raising e-mail. And the election has attracted news coverage from as far away as Sweden.”
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54969&title=%E2%80%9CNational%20Gun%20Debate%20Hits%20Close%20to%20Home%20in%20Colorado%20Recall%20Vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, recall elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>
“Watauga Elections Board To Consider Legends Polling Place, Backtracking on Combining Three Boone Precincts”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54966>
Posted on September 2, 2013 4:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54966>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The latest<http://www.hcpress.com/news/watauga-elections-board-to-consider-backtracking-on-combining-boone-precincts-legends-polling-place.html> from North Carolina.
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54966&title=%E2%80%9CWatauga%20Elections%20Board%20To%20Consider%20Legends%20Polling%20Place%2C%20Backtracking%20on%20Combining%20Three%20Boone%20Precincts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The Business of American Democracy: Citizens United, Independent Spending, and Elections”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54962>
Posted on September 2, 2013 4:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54962>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tilman Klumpp, Hugo Mialon and Michael Willaims have posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2312519> on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. We analyze the effects of Citizens United on election outcomes. The 50 U.S. states provide an ideal setting for this analysis, as the ruling only affected a subset of the states. We find that Citizens United is associated with an increase of approximately two percentage points in Republican election probabilities in state House races. The increase is estimated to be ten or more percentage points in several states. We link these estimates to qualitative, “on the ground” evidence of significant spending by conservative organizations funded in large part by corporations through channels enabled by Citizens United. However, we find no conclusive evidence that Citizens United has yet reduced candidate entry or direct contributions in state elections. Implications for national elections and possible regulatory responses are discussed.
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54962&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Business%20of%20American%20Democracy%3A%20Citizens%20United%2C%20Independent%20Spending%2C%20and%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
A Reply from My Critic on North Carolina<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54959>
Posted on September 2, 2013 4:09 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54959>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Following up on this post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54939>, here is a very lengthy reply from my critic below the fold.  (I don’t have the time now to continue the debate with this reader, but I would point out that some things are just plain wrong, such as the connection between a student’s residency and whether or not the student may be claimed as a dependent on her parent’s tax return. Not true<http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/student-voting-guide-faq#taxes>.  For more on student voting rights and issues, see this excellent Brennan Center student voting guide.<http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/student-voting-guide> I am reprinting this here because I did promise the reader I would print his reply.) Continue reading →<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54959#more-54959>
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54959&title=A%20Reply%20from%20My%20Critic%20on%20North%20Carolina&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Obama Electoral Commission Omission: Our Voting System Needs Real Reform”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54955>
Posted on September 2, 2013 1:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54955>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Harry Kresky and Jacqueline Salit have written this opinion piece<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/02/obama-commission-omission-the-voting-system-isn-t-the-problem.html> for The Daily Beast.
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54955&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Electoral%20Commission%20Omission%3A%20Our%20Voting%20System%20Needs%20Real%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Eric Holder’s Suit Against Texas Gives the Supreme Court a Chance to Gut Even More of the Voting Rights Act”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54953>
Posted on September 1, 2013 8:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54953>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jeffrey Rosen has written this piece in the New Republic.

But it has a really odd lede, suggesting that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires proof of intentional discrimination. (“As Molly Redden has reported<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114436/eric-holder-sues-texas-over-voter-id-law-why-he-might-lose>, the lawsuits face an uphill battle because courts have interpreted Section 2 of the voting rights act to ban only voting practices that are intentionally discriminatory and have established a high burden of proof for intentional discrimination.”)

It does not. [See Luke McLoughlin's piece.<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962563>]
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54953&title=%E2%80%9CEric%20Holder%E2%80%99s%20Suit%20Against%20Texas%20Gives%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20a%20Chance%20to%20Gut%20Even%20More%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Gov. McDonnell described as aware of gifts from Virginia businessman”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54951>
Posted on September 1, 2013 1:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54951>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-described-as-aware-of-gifts-from-virginia-businessman/2013/08/31/f2739284-0f3e-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html>
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54951&title=%E2%80%9CGov.%20McDonnell%20described%20as%20aware%20of%20gifts%20from%20Virginia%20businessman%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, ethics investigations<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>
“Plan B for Voting Rights”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54949>
Posted on September 1, 2013 12:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54949>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jesse Wegman has written this NYT Editorial Notebook column<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/plan-b-for-voting-rights.html?ref=politics&_r=0> on the Elections Clause.
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54949&title=%E2%80%9CPlan%20B%20for%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Supreme Court’s campaign finance case gets new firepower”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54947>
Posted on August 31, 2013 9:35 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54947>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

USA Today reports<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/30/supreme-court-mcconnell-campaign-finance/2737317/>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54947&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20campaign%20finance%20case%20gets%20new%20firepower%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Ruth Marcus: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the offensive”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54945>
Posted on August 31, 2013 9:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54945>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting WaPo column.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-the-offensive/2013/08/27/59a01198-0f3b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html>
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54945&title=%E2%80%9CRuth%20Marcus%3A%20Ruth%20Bader%20Ginsburg%20on%20the%20offensive%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“G.O.P. Senators Fail to Head Off Primary Challenges by Tea Party Rivals”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54943>
Posted on August 31, 2013 9:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54943>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/us/politics/gop-senators-fail-to-head-off-tea-party-rivals.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
[cid:image001.png at 01CEA8B7.F5D6A710]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54943&title=%E2%80%9CG.O.P.%20Senators%20Fail%20to%20Head%20Off%20Primary%20Challenges%20by%20Tea%20Party%20Rivals%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>

--

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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130903/45dbe628/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/20130903/45dbe628/attachment.png>