[EL] VRA bill details, more news

[Rick Hasen]

    New Proposed VRA Would Subject to Preclearance GA, LA, MI, and TX
    with More Possibly to Come, and Make Bail In Much Easier
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58004>

Posted on January 16, 2014 9:53 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58004>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ari Berman reports 
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/177962/members-congress-introduce-new-fix-voting-rights-act#>:

The Sensenbrenner-Conyers-Leahy bill strengthens the VRA in five 
distinct ways:

    1: The legislation draws a new coverage formula for Section 4,
    thereby resurrecting Section 5. States with five violations of
    federal law to their voting changes over the past fifteen years will
    have to submit future election changes for federal approval. This
    new formula would currently apply to Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi
    and Texas. Local jurisdictions would be covered if they commit three
    or more violations or have one violation and "persistent, extremely
    low minority turnout" over the past fifteen years.

    The formula is based on a rolling calendar, updated with a current
    fifteen-year time period to exempt states who are no longer
    discriminating or add new ones who are, creating a deterrent against
    future voting rights violations. It's based on empirical conditions
    and current data, not geography or a fixed time period---which
    voting rights advocates hope will satisfy Chief Justice John Roberts
    should the new legislation be enacted and reach the Supreme Court.

    The new Section 4 proposal is far from perfect. It does not apply to
    states with an extensive record of voting discrimination, like
    Alabama (where civil rights protests in Selma gave birth to the
    VRA), Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia,
    which were previously subject to Section 5. Nor does it apply to
    states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have enacted new
    voting restrictions in the past few years.

    Moreover, rulings against voter ID laws -- like in Texas in 2012 --
    will not count as a new violation. Voter ID laws can still be
    blocked by the Department of Justice or federal courts in the new
    states covered under Section 4, but that will not be included as one
    of the five violations needed to keep the state covered. This
    exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House
    Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans.

    2: The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA
    <http://prospect.org/article/get-know-section-3-voting-rights-act>,
    which has been described as the Act's "secret weapon
    <http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/the-secret-weapon-could-save-the-voting>."
    Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be
    "bailed-in" to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show
    evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very
    difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any
    violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law -- whether
    intentional or not -- can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make
    it far easier to cover new states. (One major caveat, again, is that
    court objections to voter ID laws cannot be used as grounds for
    "bail-in" under Section 3.)

    3: The legislation mandates that jurisdictions in all fifty states
    have to provide notice in the local media and online of any election
    procedures related to a) redistricting b) changes within 120 days
    before a federal election and c) the moving of a polling place. This
    will make it easier for citizens to identify potentially harmful
    voting changes in the 46 states not subject to Sections 4 and 5.

    4: The legislation makes it easier to seek a preliminary injunction
    against a potentially discriminatory voting law. Plaintiffs will now
    only have to show that the hardship to them outweighs the hardship
    to the state if a law is blocked in court pending a full trial.
    There will be a preliminary injunction hearing on North Carolina's
    voting law
    <http://www.thenation.com/blog/177577/north-carolina-shows-why-voting-rights-act-still-needed>
    in July 2014, before the full trial takes place July 2015.

    5: The legislation reaffirms that the Attorney General can send
    federal observers to monitor elections in states subject to Section
    4 and expands the AG's authority to send observers to jurisdictions
    with a history of discriminating against language minority groups,
    which includes parts of twenty-five states
    <http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_203/2011_notice.pdf>.

I'll have some independent analysis when I can see the actual bill.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58004&title=New%20Proposed%20VRA%20Would%20Subject%20to%20Preclearance%20GA%2C%20LA%2C%20MI%2C%20and%20TX%20with%20More%20Possibly%20to%20Come%2C%20and%20Make%20Bail%20In%20Much%20Easier&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    Bipartisan Voting Rights Act is Possible
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57999>

Posted on January 16, 2014 9:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57999>by Spencer Overton 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=17>

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to Rick's blog, but I 
disagree with his skepticism about the Voting Rights Act update 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57995>.

My take is that Republicans and Democrats can come together to update 
the Voting Rights Act.  Rick and some others assume Congress is too 
polarized.  Anti-civil rights ideological fringes try to fuel this 
polarization by painting the update as a partisan issue.

The fact, however, is that both Republicans and Democrats oppose voting 
discrimination.  Updating the Act can happen.  I'm not saying an update 
is guaranteed.  Consistent skepticism without concrete information is 
unwarranted, however, and only undermines the prospect of protecting 
voting rights.

I will continue to follow this closely throughout the day.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57999&title=Bipartisan%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20is%20Possible&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    Voting Rights Act Bill from Reps. Conyers and Sensenbrenner
    Apparently Getting Filed Today <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57995>

Posted on January 16, 2014 8:43 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57995>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Developing...

UPDATE:

Here's a Roll Call report, 
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/lawmakers-to-introduce-bipartisan-voting-rights-act-fix/>which 
says parallel legislation is also coming to the Senate, but no details 
on what is in the bill.

I don't expect whatever comes out to make it through the Republican House.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57995&title=Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Bill%20from%20Reps.%20Conyers%20and%20Sensenbrenner%20Apparently%20Getting%20Filed%20Today&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    "Conservative Groups Urge Congress to Reject Proposed 501(c)(4)
    Regs" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57991>

Posted on January 16, 2014 8:22 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57991>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TaxProf reports. 
<http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/01/conservative-groups.html>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57991&title=%E2%80%9CConservative%20Groups%20Urge%20Congress%20to%20Reject%20Proposed%20501%28c%29%284%29%20Regs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    "Do We Have the Right to Choose How We Talk About the Right to
    Choose?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57989>

Posted on January 16, 2014 7:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57989>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dahlia Lithwick's latest 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/mccullen_v_coakley_and_a_trio_of_fascinating_new_court_cases_about_abortion.2.html>for 
/Slate /brings in a discussion of the /Susan B. Anthony List/ false 
speech case.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57989&title=%E2%80%9CDo%20We%20Have%20the%20Right%20to%20Choose%20How%20We%20Talk%20About%20the%20Right%20to%20Choose%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    "Top U.S. corporations funneled $185 million to political
    nonprofits" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57987>

Posted on January 16, 2014 7:29 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57987>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Major new CPI report 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits>:

    The U.S. Supreme Court's /Citizens United v. Federal Election
    Commission/
    <http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/03/7782/big-bucks-flood-2012-election-what-courts-said-and-why-we-should-care/>
    ruling in 2010 did not, as some warned, unleash a flood of corporate
    money directly into elections.

    But since then, scores of blue-chip U.S. companies quietly
    bankrolled politically active nonprofits to the tune of at least
    $185 million in roughly a single year, according to a new Center for
    Public Integrity <http://www.publicintegrity.org/> investigation.

    Ranking among the biggest donors are energy giant Exelon Corp.,
    health insurer WellPoint Inc. and technology titan Microsoft Corp.

    The millions of dollars in corporate expenditures highlighted by the
    Center for Public Integrity's research flowed to more than 1,000
    politically active nonprofits, from major trade associations such as
    the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to pro-business alliances such as the
    Fix the Debt Coalition.

MORE:

Sidebar: Dow Chemical backed anti-union nonprofit with $2 million 
donation 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14109/dow-chemical-backed-anti-union-nonprofit-2-million-donation>

Interactive database: Follow the corporate cash flow to nonprofits 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14093/follow-corporate-cash-flow-nonprofits>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57987&title=%E2%80%9CTop%20U.S.%20corporations%20funneled%20%24185%20million%20to%20political%20nonprofits%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    "The District Needs to Tackle Election Reform"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57985>

Posted on January 16, 2014 7:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57985>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo editorial 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-district-needs-to-tackle-election-reform/2014/01/15/5d13094c-7d73-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57985&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20District%20Needs%20to%20Tackle%20Election%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    "Tricks of the Trade How companies anonymously influence climate
    policy through their business and trade associations"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57983>

Posted on January 16, 2014 7:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57983>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New report 
<http://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/tricks-of-the-trade.html> 
from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57983&title=%E2%80%9CTricks%20of%20the%20Trade%20%20How%20companies%20anonymously%20influence%20climate%20policy%20through%20their%20business%20and%20trade%20associations%E2%80%9D&description=>

-- 
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
hhttp://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/20140116/ed4fbe88/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/20140116/ed4fbe88/attachment.png>