[EL] VRA bill details, more news

[Kurt Walters]

I don’t want to nitpick, but contrary to the story, I’m fairly certain (and this page<http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php> from DOJ implies) that the state of North Carolina was never covered under the Section 4 formula. That is not to say, of course, that some localities in NC were covered. This page<http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/faq.html#question5> states that 40 counties were covered in NC.

The segment from the story: "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."

----
Kurt Walters
Research & Policy Analyst
Public Campaign Action Fund
(202) 640-5598
kwalters at campaignmoney.org

From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Date: Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM
To: Estelle Rogers <erogers at projectvote.org<mailto:erogers at projectvote.org>>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] VRA bill details, more news

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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org<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<mailto: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/20140116/7e11b435/attachment.html>