[EL] Thoughts on VRAA

[Gaddie, Ronald K.]

Yes, Boston could be covered.

Is the point to re-cover what was once covered, or to cover what needs to be covered?


Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
General Editor, Social Science Quarterly
Co-editor, American Politics Research
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of John Tanner [john.k.tanner at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:03 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Thoughts on VRAA

One issue that bears clarifying what constitutes a "violation", especially for coverage of sub-state jurisdictions.  Taking 4 situations -

Penns Grove NJ and Berks County, PA probably could be covered because both violated Sections 2, 4e and 208, although all in the same lawsuit.

Boston could be covered because it discriminated against (1) Latino, (2) Chinese-American and (3) Vietnamese-American voters.

Hamtramck, MI could be covered becasue it violated the rights of Bengali and Yemeni voters and there were at least 2 extensions of a consent decree based on failure to comply with the initial decree.  See also Cibola and Sandoval Counties, NM.

Los Angeles County CA could be covered since there were suits against 4 cities "in" the county.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140119/7d25b7ad/attachment.html>