[EL] VA Redistricting decision (CA tie)

[Mark Rush]

I think the operative phrase in all of this is Justin's: "Virginia’s
deployment of race in the redistricting process was hamhanded rather than
nuanced, and therefore unconstitutional".

Gambling is still taking place in the casino.



On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> The Virginia redistricting decision <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481>
>
> Posted on October 7, 2014 3:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481> by
>  *Justin Levitt* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Rick mentioned <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456> the Virginia congressional
> redistricting decision
> <http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virginia-Gerrymandering.pdf> 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 Alabama case now up before the
> Supreme Court <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#AL>.  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 this new
> law review piece <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2487426>.  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!)
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66481&title=The%20Virginia%20redistricting%20decision&description=>
>
> Posted in election law and constitutional law
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>, redistricting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Mark Rush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141008/261a8a04/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/20141008/261a8a04/attachment.png>