[EL] VA Redistricting decision (CA tie)

[Douglas Johnson]

I'll second the comment about CA - as here race was undeniably a major (and
likely predominant) factor in drawing lines. Cities were split precisely
along racial lines (down to the census block)  in pursuit of either
precisely 50.01% Latino CVAP measures (South El Monte) or in pursuit of the
precise Section 5 "benchmark" number (Gilroy), with no study of
effectiveness and only a still-secret study of polarized voting.

 

-          Doug

 

Douglas Johnson, Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College 

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

310-200-2058 

 


 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481> The Virginia redistricting decision


Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481> October 7, 2014 3:59 pm by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4> Justin Levitt

Rick  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456> mentioned the Virginia
<http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virginia-Gerrymandering
.pdf> congressional redistricting decision earlier today.

I've already seen some confusion about this: the decision doesn't depend on
Shelby County.  Indeed, as I read it, the decision would have been exactly
the the same if Shelby County came out differently - or hadn't been decided
at all.

Instead, what the court found is that Virginia's deployment of race in the
redistricting process was hamhanded rather than nuanced, and therefore
unconstitutional.  That is, in purportedly attempting to comply with section
5, Virginia focused on a demographic target alone, without any attention to
the actual "effective exercise of the electoral franchise" on the ground.
That kind of shorthand doesn't fly, not least because it shows exactly the
sort of essentialism section 5 was designed to combat.

Unfortunately, Virginia's mistake is all too common this cycle.  As Rick
says, this issue is also involved in the
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#AL> Alabama case now up before the
Supreme Court.  But it's not just Alabama.  Versions of this same problem
have cropped up in California, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Texas - at least.

I've reviewed each of these cases, and the governing law - arriving at
essentially the same conclusion as the court in Virginia - in
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2487426> this new law review piece.  The majority
cited no secondary source; perhaps because mine is the first I'm aware of
that connects the dots on the overly blunt misinterpretation of the Voting
Rights Act.  (Law Review 2Ls: it's still available!  Act now, while supplies
last!)

 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D66481&title=The%20Virginia%20redistricting%20decision&description=>
Share

Posted in election law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55> ,  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
redistricting,  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141008/bbe1728a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141008/bbe1728a/attachment.png>