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

[John Tanner]

It is both national in scope and to set a new standard, with the relative
hardships tilting toward plaintiffs if the change occurs within the 6
months before an election or without the requisite notice.  I see no
mention likelihood of success on the merits -- it would tend to operate as
a prophylaxis against last-minute voting changes --  but it doesn't
explicitly eliminate the traditional test, although that is a legitimate
reading.



On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Pildes, Rick
<pildesr at exchange.law.nyu.edu>wrote:

> 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<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
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140128/44c4ff6c/attachment.html>