[EL] (SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) Sen. Thad Cochran & VRAA

[Easley, Billy (Paul)]

Senator Cochran’s concerns were also echoed in the VRAA hearing that Senator Leahy held on Wednesday. However, on the point of a national preclearance regime, I’m unsure whether national enforcement would be constitutional under Shelby. Under Shelby, there has to be a recent pattern of discrimination in order to place a jurisdiction into preclearance or the penalty will offend federalism principles and exceed the powers of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. What’s the constitutional justification light of that for putting the entire country into preclearance, even counties that have no history of racial discrimination at the voting booth?

From: Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>>
Date: Saturday, June 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM
To: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: (SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) [EL] Sen. Thad Cochran & VRAA

Some historical context to the news that Senator Cochran is not currently supporting the VRAA:

During the congressional debate over the VRA's 1982 reauthorization, Senator Cochran sponsored an amendment to (1) eliminate DOJ's administrative preclearance authority and substantially reduce DOJ's role in judicial preclearance, and (2) apply the preclearance regime nationally, instead of to a select few jurisdictions. See 128 Cong. Rec. 14,279-82 (June 18, 1982). The Senator's 2013 post-Shelby statement<http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/cochran-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-voting-rights-act> indirectly referenced his dislike of (1) DOJ's role in the preclearance process, and (2) the application of preclearance to only a select few jurisdictions.

In other words, Senator Cochran has had essentially the same two concerns with preclearance for over thirty years. The VRAA as currently drafted does not address his two concerns. Yet VRAA supporters nonetheless attempted, very publicly, to win his support.

(I have a PDF of the relevant Congressional Record pages for anyone interested who wants to e-mail me off-list, but the 3.5 mb file is too large to attach to a listserv e-mail.)


Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
@Pronounce_the_T


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
(Pipe) Dreams Dashed Dept: Thad Cochran Not Supporting Voting Rights Act Fix<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62855>
Posted on June 27, 2014 12:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62855>by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sen. Cochran’s spokesperson tells Greg Sargent<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/27/trolling-of-thad-cochran-on-voting-rights-fails-to-get-desired-effect/>:

I asked Cochran spokesman Chris Gallegos for a response. He said Cochran is “listening” to the argument over the new legislation, but directed me back to his previous statement<http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/cochran-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-voting-rights-act> praising the SCOTUS decision. Gallegos also emailed:

It does appear that Tuesday’s election generally went smoothly, even as the state implemented its new voter ID law.  Mississippi election officials deserve credit.  The Senator would concur with Senator Rand Paul, who recently said, “I’m for more people voting, not less people voting.”

[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62855&title=%28Pipe%29%20Dreams%20Dashed%20Dept%3A%20Thad%20Cochran%20Not%20Supporting%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Fix&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>, VRAA<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140629/d134542a/attachment.html>