[EL] questions about preliminary relief and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2014

[Pildes, Rick]

My recollection is that the new PI standard in 6(b)(4) for voting cases is a nationwide standard.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:37 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] questions about preliminary relief and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2014

Sorry for sending a quick response that may not take the text of the bill into account, but I have another engagement shortly.

To the extent that the new coverage formula may appropriately target certain jurisdictions, the bill could require judicial preclearance of all changes in those jurisdictions. If the bill instead temporarily prevents changes from going forward in the covered jurisdictions while the changes are considered by the court *only on a showing of relative hardships that favor the plaintiffs* this seems an even less intrusive measure.

Again, my apologies if this is not responsive to the statutory provision.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher S. Elmendorf
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:19 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] questions about preliminary relief and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2014

As I read the draft bill, Section 6(b)(4) seems to do away with the conventional four-part test for preliminary injunctions, in favor of a simple weighing of relative hardships.  Am I mistaken?  Is there any precedent for a statute that does away with the "likelihood of success" factor with respect to preliminary relief?  And if Section 6(b)(4) does in fact eliminate this factor, is it constitutional?  (How can the contemplated relief be "congruent and proportional" to the remedying or prevention of constitutional violations, if the relief can be had without any showing that a Section 2 violation is at least somewhat likely?)

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed light on these matters.

Best,

Chris

Christopher S. Elmendorf
Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law
400 Mrak Hall Drive
Davis, CA 95616
530.752.5756

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140128/4261716a/attachment.html>