[EL] SCOTUS takes Alabama redistricting cases.

Mon Jun 2 10:56:32 PDT 2014

Should we consider this a first run at a new line of "*Shaw* 3.0" cases?

If the first *Shaw* cases defeated minority-maximization policies and the
post-*Cromartie* line provided new leeway for districts to avoid strict
scrutiny, then this seems like a new period under which districts drawn to
comply with Section 5 are no longer justified. Thoughts?

Also, since incumbency protection provides a basis to avoid strict scrutiny
analysis (before getting to strict scrutiny), yet ensuring preclearance
under Section 5 is no longer a compelling government interest (once we get
to strict scrutiny), then doesn't that create a situation where districts
that were once created to comply with Section 5 requirements (and avoid
Section 2 liability) are stuck?

In other words, *Shaw* 3.0 cases will continue to prevent the use of
race in new districts as the "predominate factor" while incumbency
protection will protect the status quo where race was used to draw
particular boundaries under the old standards.

It is ironic that in *Shelby* the Court struck down a coverage formula
because it was based on the past with the consequence of locking our
future political boundaries into the present.

- Juan Carlos

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:

>  The more significant filings below, including the case's first trip up
> to SCOTUS, are (of course) collected here
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#AL>.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On 6/2/2014 7:29 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog page for 13-1138
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/>;
> opinion
> <http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Ala_Legislative_Black_Caucus_v_Alabama_CASE_NO_212CV691_ThreeJudg>
> .
>
> SCOTUSBlog case page for 13-895
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/>;
> (same opinion).
> On 6/2/14, 7:19 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>   “Supreme Court to hear Ala. redistricting challenge”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61943>
>  Posted on June 2, 2014 7:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61943> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_ALABAMA_REDISTRICTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>:
> “The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a challenge from Alabama
> Democrats who say a Republican-drawn legislative map intentionally packs
> black Democrats into a few voting districts, giving them too little
> influence in the Legislature.”
>
> This will mark the first time since the *LULAC *decision that the Court
> will consider the unconstitutional racial gerrymandering cause of action.
> The last significant look at that question was Easley v. Cromartie
> <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/234/>, when Justice
> O’Connor, whose views were so central to this cause of action, was still on
> the Court.  (In *Cromartie *Justice O’Connor joined the liberals in
> rejecting a racial gerrymandering claim, after a number of cases, beginning
> with Shaw v. Reno
> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2057233072475851470&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>,
> where she recognized it but differed from the other Justices about how to
> prove it.)
>
> It will be interesting to see what the Chief and Justice Alito think about
> this.
>
> The grants were limited, as Marty Lederman explains:
>
>  Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, No. 13-1138 (limited to
> question one — Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each
> majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have
> using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when
> combined with the state’s new goal of significantly reducing population
> deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and
> racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not
> justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression
> aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs
> have standing to bring such a constitutional claim;), and
>
> Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895 (limited to
> question two — whether Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans
> unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing
> them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced
> when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts).
>
>  [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61943&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Ala.%20redistricting%20challenge%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
*Juan Carlos Ibarra*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140602/862ecfca/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140602/862ecfca/attachment.png>