[EL] Thoughts on VRAA

[John Tanner]

A conversation brought another issue to mind -- the transparency
requirement (posting all voting changes on the internet) is one of those
ideas that remind me that "nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't
have to do it."  There are some practical issues --

A remarkable number of US counties don't even have web sites, and are along
way off from regular postings.

Even after 40+ years, many state and local jurisdictions, large and small,
do not know what constitutes a voting change.  Sometimes I get it wrong
myself.  See Riley v Kennedy.   It is very, very easy to overestimate the
capabilities of state and local governments, many of which suffer severely
from limited resources and institutional dementia.

It would be good for for the Act to include a list of changes or types of
changes - and perhaps excuse jurisdiction with fewer than 5% or 10k
minority population, a la 203, and I'm sure there are other tweaks that can
maximize information, minimize confusion and low-benefit litigation.

I think the Act's approach has a great deal to recommend it, but that there
predictably are a things to iron out.  And  I may, of course, be misreading
parts of the bill.



On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20140121/e6758bac/attachment.html>