[EL] VRA bill details, more news

Thu Jan 16 09:59:36 PST 2014

yes, sorry!

On 1/16/2014 9:57 AM, Estelle Rogers wrote:
> Before anyone gets alarmed, I believe it's MS, not MI.
>
> Estelle H. Rogers, Esq.
> Legislative Director
> Project Vote
> 202-546-4173, ext. 310
>
> The information contained in this email is confidential and may 
> contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended 
> recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is 
> prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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_save_171_16.png> 
> <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
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
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/20140116/0b47f745/attachment.html>