[EL] The lens of race and the role of politics

James Blacksher jblacksher at ns.sympatico.ca
Thu Aug 6 08:39:18 PDT 2015


Sorry.  Jim

James U. Blacksher
P.O. Box 636
Birmingham, AL 35201
phone: 205-591-7238
fax: 866-845-4395

On 8/6/2015 10:34 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> you sent this only to me, and not to the list
> rick
>
>
> On 8/6/15 8:27 AM, James Blacksher wrote:
>> Regarding Rick's remarks in Slate, I would like to hear opinions on 
>> this list about this assertion: There has never been a time in US 
>> history when race did *not* correlate with politics, or when race did 
>> *not* correlate with wealth, whether it was federalists vs. 
>> republicans, Whigs vs. Democrats, Republicans vs. Democrats, 
>> Populists vs. Democrats, and now Democrats vs. Republicans.
>> James U. Blacksher
>> P.O. Box 636
>> Birmingham, AL 35201
>> phone: 205-591-7238
>> fax: 866-845-4395
>> On 8/6/2015 9:42 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     “How to Save the Voting Rights Act”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:30 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> [bumping to the top for today’s 50th anniversary of the VRA; see 
>>> alsomy coverage<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>of yesterday’s 
>>> very important 5th Circuit Texas voter id ruling.]
>>>
>>> I have writtenthis 
>>> piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/how_to_save_the_voting_rights_act_voting_rights_shouldn_t_rely_on_parsing.html>for 
>>> /Slate/. It begins:
>>>
>>>     In 2010, the/Simpsons/featured a news helicopter
>>>     <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/simpsons-mocks-fox-news-racist_n_786712.html>emblazoned
>>>     with the logo: “FOX News: Not Racist, But #1 with Racists.” That
>>>     slogan might be applied to today’s Republican Party, which in
>>>     recent years has actively passed voting laws that make it harder
>>>     for poor and minority voters to vote. Whether to label the
>>>     Republican Party “racist” isn’t an academic exercise. The
>>>     question is actually at the heart of lawsuits over the future of
>>>     voting rights in Texas and North Carolina. It’s also a question
>>>     with historical resonance, particularly on the eve of the Voting
>>>     Rights Act’s 50^th anniversary this week.
>>>
>>>     The five-decade history of the Voting Rights Act is told
>>>     masterfully in Ari Berman’s new book,/Give Us the Ballot: The
>>>     Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America/
>>>     <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374158274/?tag=slatmaga-20>. Berman
>>>     starts around the time of the Selma, Alabama, marches, but
>>>     unlike the movie /Selma/
>>>     <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00V8Z7E1Y/?tag=slatmaga-20>, Berman
>>>     goes on to give us the rest of the history: the expansion of
>>>     voting rights protections in 1970 and 1975 to include Latinos,
>>>     Native Americans, and others over the objections of racists,
>>>     many in the Democratic Party; the important 1982 rewriting of
>>>     Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, providing additional
>>>     protections for minority voters nationally, and (now Chief
>>>     Justice) John Roberts’ key role for the Reagan administration in
>>>     unsuccessfully fighting against the expansion; hot disputes over
>>>     voting rights in Florida in the 2000 election; the controversial
>>>     renewal of the expiring “preclearance provisions” of the act in
>>>     2006 that continued to require states with a history of
>>>     discrimination to get federal approval before changing their
>>>     voting laws; and the ongoing “voting wars
>>>     <http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248>”
>>>     that accelerated when Roberts led the court’s conservatives in
>>>     striking down the 2006 preclearance renewal in/Shelby County v.
>>>     Holder/ <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/>.
>>>
>>>     Berman’s book, likeJim Rutenberg’s excellent cover story
>>>     <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html?_r=0>for
>>>     the/New York Times Magazine/on the 50^th anniversary of the
>>>     Voting Rights Act, views the struggles over voting rules
>>>     primarily through the lens of race. And although that is an
>>>     essential lens to apply, it downplays the growing role of
>>>     partisan politics in this story, a partisan struggle that is
>>>     having profound ramifications for the newest wave of court cases
>>>     involving voting restrictions. Put simply, the Republican Party
>>>     has reasons unrelated to racial animus to push new voting
>>>     restrictions.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74899&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Save%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inelection administration 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “First draft of congressional map shakes up some districts”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:26 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> The Miami Herald reports. 
>>> <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article30190932.html>
>>>
>>> See also thisFred Grimm column 
>>> <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article30155730.html>.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75051&title=%E2%80%9CFirst%20draft%20of%20congressional%20map%20shakes%20up%20some%20districts%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Wisconsin’s Shame: the Left Attempts to Discredit a John Doe
>>>     Victim, but New Audiotape Tells Different Story”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75049>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:23 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75049>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> National Review 
>>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422070/wisconsin-john-doe-investigations-audiotape>:
>>>
>>>     The Journal Sentinel’s Daniel Bice has seized on the tape to
>>>     assert that it “contradicts” Archer’s claims, telling a
>>>     “different story” from the one she told National Review and the
>>>     one she told in her lawsuit. In reality, however, the tape omits
>>>     all of the most critical moments of the raid, and corroborates
>>>     Archer’s account in many key respects. To the extent it exposes
>>>     differences between what was recorded and Archer’s recollection,
>>>     those differences actually offer slight encouragement to those
>>>     who wish to see law-enforcement officials obey constitutional
>>>     mandates. Crucially, the tape omits the beginning of the raid,
>>>     in which Archer reports that the police pounded on the door,
>>>     held a battering ram, confronted her while she was completely
>>>     undressed, and left her terrified that they would shoot her
>>>     dogs. Instead, the tape begins at an unknown time after those
>>>     events occurred, when an investigator apparently approaches the
>>>     house with the scene secure, Archer’s dogs under control, and
>>>     Archer and her partner (who’d been interrupted in the shower)
>>>     fully dressed. However, at the 18:50 mark Archer does describe
>>>     what had just happened,  In other words, the tape doesn’t
>>>     contradict Archer’s story of the initial entry, and, in fact,
>>>     her contemporaneous statements corroborate the story she told NR.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75049&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Shame%3A%20the%20Left%20Attempts%20to%20Discredit%20a%20John%20Doe%20Victim%2C%20but%20New%20Audiotape%20Tells%20Different%20Story%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Senate Report Cites I.R.S. Mismanagement in Targeting of Tea
>>>     Party Groups” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75047>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:21 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75047>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> NYT 
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/senate-report-cites-irs-mismanagement-in-targeting-of-tea-party-groups.html?_r=0>:
>>>
>>>     A Senate committee on Wednesday closed a two-year investigation
>>>     with unanimous agreement that mismanagement at the Internal
>>>     Revenue Service led it to improperly target conservative groups
>>>     seeking tax-exempt status. But a report by the panel did not
>>>     suggest that any laws were broken, and Republicans and Democrats
>>>     were divided over whether White House politics was behind the
>>>     problems….
>>>
>>>     Mr. Hatch said that the “personal politics of I.R.S. employees”
>>>     like Ms. Lerner affected “how the I.R.S. conducted its
>>>     business.” But committee Democrats said in the report that
>>>     beyond “merely anecdotal evidence that she was a Democrat,”
>>>     nothing showed that Ms. Lerner “allowed her political beliefs to
>>>     affect how she carried out her duties as a manager.”
>>>
>>>     The report said that appreciably more conservative-leaning
>>>     groups than left-leaning ones experienced multiyear delays and
>>>     sometimes intrusive auditing of their applications. Democrats
>>>     attributed that to the fact that more conservative groups were
>>>     seeking tax-exempt status from 2010 to 2013. The terms that were
>>>     red flags to monitors also included “progressive” and “Acorn.”
>>>
>>> You can find the Senate Finance Committee reportat this link 
>>> <http://www.finance.senate.gov/library/reports/committee/download/?id=8ff9a3ac-74f8-4ec0-a554-40525529920c>.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75047&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Report%20Cites%20I.R.S.%20Mismanagement%20in%20Targeting%20of%20Tea%20Party%20Groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax 
>>> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “How campaign finance laws spawned permanent presidential
>>>     campaigns” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75045>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:17 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75045>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Scott Blackburn and Luke Wachob 
>>> oped<http://www.ocregister.com/articles/campaign-676126-campaigns-today.html>in 
>>> the OC Register:
>>>
>>>     So what changed? Why are presidential campaigns today a 24/7/365
>>>     affair?
>>>
>>>     There are innumerable reasons: the rise of television as a
>>>     campaign medium, the increased role of early-state primaries and
>>>     the decreased role of “back-room” party deals, to name a few.
>>>
>>>     But one overlooked cause may be campaign finance regulations,
>>>     which, to fair, are easy to overlook. Most Americans recognize
>>>     that they generally do not achieve their stated goal of
>>>     preventing corruption, nor do they appear to limit the ability
>>>     of wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as they wish on
>>>     influencing elections and policy. But the thousands of pages of
>>>     regulations force candidates to behave in a strictly regimented
>>>     way that helps explain why campaigns today begin so much earlier
>>>     than they used to.
>>>
>>> And the Citizens United era will lead to shorter campaigns?  Hmmm.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75045&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20campaign%20finance%20laws%20spawned%20permanent%20presidential%20campaigns%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “50 Years of the Voting Rights Act”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75043>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:15 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75043>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>>     Spencer Overton
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/blog/50-years-voting-rights-act>:
>>>
>>>     The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently
>>>     released /50 Years of the Voting Rights Act: The State of Race
>>>     in Politics
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/VRA%20report%2C%208.5.15%20%28540%20pm%29%28updated%29.pdf>.
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/2%20pg%20Executive%20Summary%208-5-15_0.pdf>/
>>>
>>>     The report is critical to understanding the impact of the Act
>>>     and the future of voting rights.  The report provides data on
>>>     minority voter turnout, racially polarized voting, policy
>>>     outcomes by race, and the number of minority elected officials
>>>     from the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 until today.
>>>
>>>     *Click here for a 2-page summary of the report
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/2%20pg%20Executive%20Summary%208-5-15_0.pdf>*.
>>>
>>>     *Click here to read the full 46-page report*
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/VRA%20report%2C%208.5.15%20%28540%20pm%29%28updated%29.pdf>,
>>>     which is authored by Professors Khalilah Brown-Dean, Zoltan
>>>     Hajnal, Christina Rivers, and Ismail White.
>>>
>>>     Key findings:
>>>
>>>       * The black/white racial gap in voter turnout has decreased
>>>         dramatically in presidential elections since 1965.
>>>
>>>       * Local election turnout is generally less than half of
>>>         presidential general election turnout.  As overall turnout
>>>         declines in local elections, the electorate may become less
>>>         diverse.
>>>
>>>       * Turnout rates among both Asian Americans and Hispanic
>>>         Americans in presidential elections remain 15 to 20 points
>>>         below white Americans.
>>>
>>>       * Since 1960, the party identification and partisan voting
>>>         patterns of blacks and whites have become sharply divided.
>>>
>>>       * In urban local elections, race is a more decisive factor
>>>         than income, education, political ideology, religion, sexual
>>>         orientation, age, gender, and political ideology.
>>>
>>>       * Based on available data from 1972 to 2010, blacks were the
>>>         least successful group in America in terms of policy outcomes.
>>>
>>>       * Since 1965, the number of elected officials of color has
>>>         grown enormously, but people of color remain
>>>         underrepresented in elected office.
>>>
>>>     For an overview of the report, see the /Washington Post/
>>>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/where-black-voters-stand-50-years-after-the-voting-rights-act-was-passed/>,
>>>     /BlackPressUSA/
>>>     <http://www.blackpressusa.com/blacks-still-underrepresented-at-all-levels-of-politics/?utm_source=BlackPressUSA+Readers&utm_campaign=e53773e568-BPUSA_Digest_5_84_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8eef023665-e53773e568-229150925#sthash.yr2JPYbr.dpbs>,
>>>     &/The Nation/
>>>     <http://www.thenation.com/blog/200193/50-years-after-bloody-sunday-voting-rights-are-under-attack#>.
>>>
>>>     Also, see this article “/*The Voting Rights Act Thirty Years
>>>     Later*
>>>     <http://jointcenter.org/docs/FOCUS-PDF/1995/FEBRUARY/FEBRUARY%201995.PDF>/”
>>>     published by the Joint Center in 1995 and written by David
>>>     Garrow, who authored/Protest at Selma/and/Bearing the Cross/,
>>>     won the Pulitzer Prize, and was a visiting fellow at the Joint
>>>     Center in 1984.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75043&title=%E2%80%9C50%20Years%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Court filing: Scott Walker was under criminal investigation in
>>>     first John Doe probe” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75041>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:11 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75041>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Cap Times 
>>> <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/court-filing-scott-walker-was-under-criminal-investigation-in-first/article_cf27ead4-0d4b-5ea1-bc0c-154f5092228e.html>:
>>>
>>>     Gov. Scott Walker was under criminal investigation as part of a
>>>     John Doe investigation into his aides and associates during his
>>>     time as Milwaukee County Executive, according to a court filing
>>>     made Wednesday.
>>>
>>>     Walker has consistently maintained he was not a target of the probe.
>>>
>>>     “Absolutely not,”he told reporters in June 2012
>>>     <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/walker-im-not-the-target-of-a-criminal-investiga#.cgv1qO019>.
>>>     “One hundred percent wrong. Could not be more wrong. It’s just
>>>     more of the liberal scare tactics out there, desperately trying
>>>     to get the (gubernatorial) campaign off target.”….
>>>
>>>     In a court filing made in the U.S. District Court for the
>>>     Eastern District of Wisconsin by Milwaukee County District
>>>     Attorney John Chisholm and two deputies, a 2011 request for
>>>     search warrants indicates that investigators believed there was
>>>     probable cause Walker and two associates committed felony
>>>     misconduct in office while Walker’s administrationnegotiated a
>>>     lease to house the county’s Department on Aging
>>>     <http://one%20of%20three%20final%20bidders%20on%20a%20deal%20to%20purchase%20the%20milwaukee%20county-owned%20city%20campus%20building%20and%20provide%20office%20space/>.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75041&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20filing%3A%20Scott%20Walker%20was%20under%20criminal%20investigation%20in%20first%20John%20Doe%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Patrick Leahy: Restore voting rights”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75039>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:04 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75039>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> LAT oped. 
>>> <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-20150807-story.html>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75039&title=%E2%80%9CRep.%20John%20Lewis%20and%20Sen.%20Patrick%20Leahy%3A%20Restore%20voting%20rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “The Voting Rights Act Is 50 Years Old Today. So Why Do Things
>>>     Still Seem So Bad” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75037>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:03 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75037>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> HuffPo reports. 
>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voting-rights-act-50-years_55c12a20e4b05c05b01f6a0c?6zoj38fr>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75037&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%2050%20Years%20Old%20Today.%20So%20Why%20Do%20Things%20Still%20Seem%20So%20Bad%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Texas voter ID law ruled invalid — in part”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:00 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Lyle Denniston 
>>> <http://lyldenlawnews.com/2015/08/06/texas-voter-id-law-ruled-invalid-in-part/>:
>>>
>>>     Acting one day before the fiftieth anniversary of the nation’s
>>>     most important voting rights law, a federal appeals court on
>>>     Wednesday ruled that Texas
>>>     <http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Veasey-opinion-5th-CA-8-5-15.pdf> will
>>>     be barred from enforcing at least part of its four-year-old law
>>>     that requires a photo ID before a voter can go to the polls. 
>>>     The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
>>>     however, left a good deal of doubt about how much of the law
>>>     Texas will actually be nullified after a new round of analysis
>>>     that it ordered a federal trial judge to do.
>>>
>>> This is very much in line withmy own analysis: 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>a narrow and fragile win, and 
>>> not a sweeping one (and one which makes TX bail-in quite unlikely).
>>>
>>> After hearing of the 5th Circuit en banc possibilities 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>, my bet in on Texas going 
>>> straight to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75035&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20voter%20ID%20law%20ruled%20invalid%20%E2%80%94%20in%20part%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The 
>>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Why the Voting Rights Act Is Once Again Under Threat”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75032>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:55 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75032>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Ari Berman writes 
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/why-the-voting-rights-act-is-once-again-under-threat.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region>for 
>>> The New York Times oped page.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75032&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%20Once%20Again%20Under%20Threat%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Celebrating one of the Voting Rights Act’s many anniversaries”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75030>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:54 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75030>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Brianne Gorod 
>>> <http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/celebrating-one-of-the-voting-rights-acts-many-anniversaries/>at 
>>> Constitution Daily.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75030&title=%E2%80%9CCelebrating%20one%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%99s%20many%20anniversaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting 
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “The Voting Rights Umbrella” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:53 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> President Bill Clinton essay 
>>> <http://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/voting-rights-umbrella>in the /Yale 
>>> Law and Policy Review./
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75028&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Umbrella%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting 
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     US AG Lynch Statement on Texas Voter ID Ruling
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75026>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 5:53 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75026>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Here <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLr5faVUcAA4erl.jpg>, viaChris 
>>> Geidner 
>>> <https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/629089421736996868>, whose 
>>> story on the ruling ishere at Buzzfeed <http://t.co/aLGCFlX0A6>.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75026&title=US%20AG%20Lynch%20Statement%20on%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Ruling&description=>
>>> Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting 
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Federal judges reject GOP request to delay special session on
>>>     redistricting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75022>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:40 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75022>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> AP 
>>> <http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5ac70366465d4a5ea695c7b8dfe65bc8/VA--Redistricting-Lawsuit-Virginia>: 
>>> “A panel of judges has rejected Republican requests to delay an 
>>> upcoming special legislative session called to draw new 
>>> congressional boundaries in Virginia. The panel ruled 2-1 Wednesday 
>>> that it was not going to extend a Sept. 1 deadline to correct a 2012 
>>> redistricting plan the court found used race as the predominant 
>>> factor in drawing boundaries.”
>>>
>>> I think there’s a good chance the Republican legislature will not 
>>> pass a plan, or not pass a plan the Democratic governor will sign, 
>>> leaving the court to draw the plan itself.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75022&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judges%20reject%20GOP%20request%20to%20delay%20special%20session%20on%20redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Kobach to file charges in voter fraud cases”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:35 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> KWCH reports. 
>>> <http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kobach-to-file-charges-in-voter-fraud-cases/34561048>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75020&title=%E2%80%9CKobach%20to%20file%20charges%20in%20voter%20fraud%20cases%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted infraudulent fraud squad 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The Voting Wars 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “The ‘People’s Pledge’ Gimmick: Bad For Voters”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75018>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:28 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75018>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> CCP 
>>> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/08/04/the-peoples-pledge-gimmick-bad-for-voters-2/>:
>>>
>>>     The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), America’s leading
>>>     nonprofit defending First Amendment political rights to speech,
>>>     assembly and petition, today released a new study by McWethy
>>>     Fellow Luke Wachob, entitled “The People’s Pledge Gimmick: Bad
>>>     for Voters,” explaining how so-called “People’s Pledges,” where
>>>     candidates and campaigns collude to restrict independent
>>>     spending, harm democracy by muzzling speech about the
>>>     candidates. Wachob’s study also examines how the pledge is
>>>     vulnerable to gamesmanship that harms both candidates and voters
>>>     and notes that, to date, there is only one general election race
>>>     where both candidates agreed to a “People’s Pledge.”
>>>
>>>     “Instead of taking pledges with incomprehensible rules that bore
>>>     voters, we should welcome more voices about candidates. It’s one
>>>     reason we have the First Amendment,”*said CCP President David
>>>     Keating*. “It’s not surprising that some candidates for office
>>>     want to restrict speech, but let’s be real – it’s not because of
>>>     some heroic defense of how to run campaigns – it’s because they
>>>     don’t want people speaking out about them or their records and
>>>     potentially costing them votes. More spending in elections means
>>>     more voices are heard, and leads to better informed voters.”
>>>
>>>     To read Wachob’s new study on the “People’s Pledge,”click here
>>>     <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001QOAbGl3SZRqqAPyRbHsu65HQNBSvFBT_lnkblYcEqwXJ_qNKXd4msrYtNfkXQGyIRT19KTPjSgDaI5cFjlh_nr3gUD43QSJvfYYYNPotEs57xYCjH8EdXQHDhzpgJgyf1uDeKeUPFwLw1F5pTSqPyV5YAklN2C4uUh_awu7tT9ZlJD36qozEPKYeJfMP_9gzTmYPE6D6IgWSwCI0C29s30fJ_l-C3YWVXoJL3SuHq2EgKp4Wo3f_E0GlbFyvbk3JSKMlCFYpX9rOYSILjmugd2lZk4wJ4B4z5gWMA__8iRhvdDL6JiEZBm9Uxx7VQ_TlC64xniTjCyA=&c=U_lZ9Zh_OmQ02TVKR3m4KhdgwGWqOP01-3T5ppxIJfDMdod9nWHwaA==&ch=UpTaNRAUt2BcXAcAz6GY30ciwytZQySGiXw41zgtMMWgiBZqTT1CTg==>.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75018&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20%E2%80%98People%E2%80%99s%20Pledge%E2%80%99%20Gimmick%3A%20Bad%20For%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Do you know which candidates your company is funding?”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75016>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:25 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75016>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Fortune reports. 
>>> <http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/corporate-political-donations/>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75016&title=%E2%80%9CDo%20you%20know%20which%20candidates%20your%20company%20is%20funding%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:22 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> New book on Florida redistricting by Seth McKee.Click on the link to 
>>> get the book this month at half price. 
>>> <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=k4vjxbmab&v=001PcSdlfM_w90mrSost_lE8X33OV8fc_5TuSPmzYvPjUypq9DC9SRlBmHh_0MzGRcnyljgcBKybr1dPQCYVQfHhrjaI29cEyGd7lm-I-D17gWK13kQ1SEc7A%3D%3D>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75014&title=%E2%80%9CJigsaw%20Puzzle%20Politics%20in%20the%20Sunshine%20State%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Links to Some of My Recent Writings on the VRA 50th, Etc.
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:14 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> The folks @UCILawput this together 
>>> <https://storify.com/UCILaw/prof-hasen-on-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-voting-r?awesm=sfy.co_b0dlS&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign=&utm_source=t.co&utm_content=storify-pingback>@Storify.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75012&title=Links%20to%20Some%20of%20My%20Recent%20Writings%20on%20the%20VRA%2050th%2C%20Etc.&description=>
>>> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Redistricting Could Have the Most Disparate Effect”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:01 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Nick Stephanopoulos’s contribution 
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/05/ensuring-voting-rights-in-the-21st-century/redistricting-could-have-the-most-disparate-effect>to 
>>> NYT’s Room for Debate forum on the future of the Voting Rights Act 
>>> is now up.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75010&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20Could%20Have%20the%20Most%20Disparate%20Effect%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Voting 
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Appellate Panel Says Texas ID Law Broke U.S. Voting Rights Act”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75008>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 3:59 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75008>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Erik Eckholm reports 
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/appellate-panel-says-texas-id-law-broke-us-voting-rights-act.html>for 
>>> the NYT.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75008&title=%E2%80%9CAppellate%20Panel%20Says%20Texas%20ID%20Law%20Broke%20U.S.%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inelection administration 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Court: Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75006>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 3:57 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75006>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> The Texas Tribune reports. 
>>> <http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/05/ruling-offers-texas-voter-id-critics-narrow-victor/>
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75006&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%3A%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter 
>>> id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Press Statement from TX AG Fails to Acknowledge 5th Circuit Held
>>>     Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75002>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 1:57 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75002>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Weird.
>>>
>>>     *Attorney General Paxton Statement on Voter ID Ruling*
>>>
>>>     /Texas’ Voter ID Law to Remain in Effect/
>>>
>>>     AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today released the
>>>     following statement on the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals
>>>     for the Fifth Circuit on Texas’ Voter ID law:
>>>
>>>     “Today’s ruling was a victory on the fundamental question of
>>>     Texas’ right to protect the integrity of our elections and the
>>>     state’s common sense Voter ID law remains in effect. I’m
>>>     particularly pleased the panel saw through and rejected the
>>>     plaintiffs’ claim that our law constituted a ‘poll tax.’ The
>>>     intent of this law is to protect the voting process in Texas,
>>>     and we will continue to defend this important safeguard for all
>>>     Texas voters.”
>>>
>>>     Texas has successfully held three statewide elections and
>>>     numerous local and special elections with the Voter ID law in
>>>     place – with no disenfranchisement reported.
>>>
>>>     Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller presented arguments on
>>>     April 28, 2015, on behalf of the State of Texas in the U.S.
>>>     Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
>>>
>>>     The Texas Legislature enacted Texas’ Voter ID law in 2011
>>>     through Senate Bill 14 (SB14), which requires voters to present
>>>     government-issued photo ID when voting at the polls. The seven
>>>     acceptable forms of photo ID include the following: a Texas
>>>     driver’s license, free Texas election identification card (EIC),
>>>     Texas personal identification card, Texas license to carry a
>>>     concealed handgun, U.S. military identification card, U.S.
>>>     citizenship certificate, and U.S. passport.
>>>
>>> Because the AG does not acknowledge that the 5th Circuit affirmed 
>>> the trial court’s finding that the law violates section 2 of the 
>>> Voting Rights Act, the release does not say if the state will seek 
>>> en banc review, SCOTUS review, or is contemplating either.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75002&title=Press%20Statement%20from%20TX%20AG%20Fails%20to%20Acknowledge%205th%20Circuit%20Held%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
>>> Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting 
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Josh Douglas on Possibility of En Banc Review in 5th Cir. TX
>>>     Voter ID Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 1:12 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Josh has shared these thoughts with the listserv, reprinted with 
>>> permission:
>>>
>>>     Rick has suggested <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>that
>>>     today’s 5th Circuit panel decision holding Texas’s voter ID law
>>>     invalid under Section 2 of the VRA is a good candidate for en
>>>     banc review, especially given that the panel is somewhat
>>>     “liberal” for that court. Having clerked on the 5th Circuit, I’m
>>>     not sure that is entirely correct.
>>>     Judge Haynes, who wrote the opinion, is a George W. Bush
>>>     appointee. She has gone with the conservative wing of the 5th
>>>     Circuit many times (including in the recent Texas abortion
>>>     case).  True, Judge Stewart is pretty liberal, and Judge Brown
>>>     is a district judge (making her a wash in the en banc analysis
>>>     as she would not have a vote).  Ultimately, the fact that Judge
>>>     Haynes wrote the opinion is very important here.  And it is
>>>     possible that she purposely wrote a more narrow opinion to avoid
>>>     having the case go en banc.
>>>     Typically the strong conservatives on that court (like Judges
>>>     Jones, Clement, and Smith) need to retain some of the more
>>>     moderate conservatives to take an ideological case en banc, so
>>>     losing Judge Haynes here makes en banc review unlikely.  I’m not
>>>     saying it won’t happen, but I think Supreme Court cert is much
>>>     more likely than en banc review given that Judge Haynes would
>>>     argue against it (in any internal memos debating the case).  For
>>>     this to go en banc, the conservatives would need to win over
>>>     moderates like Judges Southwick and Prado, and I don’t see that
>>>     happening, especially given the fact-intensive nature of the
>>>     court’s analysis.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74999&title=Josh%20Douglas%20on%20Possibility%20of%20En%20Banc%20Review%20in%205th%20Cir.%20TX%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
>>> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Breaking and Analysis: 5th Circuit Affirms Texas Voter ID
>>>     Violates Section 2, Remands on Question of Discriminatory
>>>     Purpose <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:35 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> [bumping to top]
>>>
>>> A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
>>> Fifth Circuit has issuedan opinion 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-5th-cir.pdf>which 
>>> is a great (but not complete) victory for those challenging Texas’s 
>>> strict voter id law. The court affirms that the law violates Section 
>>> 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but rejects the claim of discriminatory 
>>> purpose and that the law constitutes a poll tax. The court remands 
>>> for more findings on discriminatory purpose and for a decision on 
>>> the remedy to the Section 2 violation. That remedy could allow Texas 
>>> to keep enforcing its law for most people, so long as it gives ways 
>>> to vote for those who face burdens under the law.
>>>
>>> This is a narrow but important victory coming on the eve of the 50th 
>>> anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
>>>
>>> As I noted when this panel was drawn, this is a relatively liberal 
>>> panel in the 5th Circuit. [Note: the original version of this post 
>>> referred to the panel as the “most liberal” and upon hearing from a 
>>> lot of folks who follow the Fifth Circuit more than I do, this is 
>>> incorrect.]
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that Texas will try to take this case en banc 
>>> to the full 5th Circuit, or perhaps to the Supreme Court. It is also 
>>> possible that Texas would let this play out in another round at the 
>>> district court and then appeal, but that seems less likely.
>>>
>>> This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible 
>>> to still give a victory to the plaintiffs.  (Perhaps that was the 
>>> price of a unanimous opinion?)  Winning on a Section 2 claim, even 
>>> given the narrow remedial scope (more on that below) is still a 
>>> significant victory for Voting Rights plaintiffs and the Department 
>>> of Justice. We will see if it holds.
>>>
>>> Here is some more detailed analysis of the case:
>>>
>>> 1. */Discriminatory purpose/. *In a key loss for plaintiffs, the 5th 
>>> Circuit remanded the question of racially discriminatory purpose to 
>>> the trial court, under a standard that will likely be very hard to 
>>> meet. Discriminatory purpose matters for a really important reason: 
>>> not only will lead to a finding of the law’s unconstitutionality and 
>>> violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it can also provide 
>>> the basis (under Section 3 of the Act) for the court to order Texas 
>>> “bailed-in” for federal oversight (“preclearance”) for up to 10 
>>> years. The 5th Circuit started its purpose analysis by noting: “We 
>>> recognize the charged nature of accusations of racism, particularly 
>>> against a legislative body, but we also recognize the sad truth that 
>>> racism continues to exist in our modern American society despite 
>>> years of laws designed to eradicate it.” It said that the trial 
>>> court erred in finding discriminatory purpose based upon (1) old 
>>> evidence of Texas’s official racial discrimination in voting; (2) 
>>> statements from opponents of the law about the purpose of the 
>>> majority passing it; and (3) post-enactment statements, again mostly 
>>> by opponents of the law. It said the trial court needs to find 
>>> stronger evidence of contemporaneous statements and actions of the 
>>> legislature in reaching this decision. So this issue gets remanded, 
>>> but the onerous standards means it will be very tough to prove such 
>>> purpose.
>>>
>>> 2.*/Discriminatory effect under Section 2./*This is the big win for 
>>> the plaintiffs. The 5th Circuit adopted the two part “vote denial” 
>>> test for Section 2 claims used by the 4th and 6th circuits (which is 
>>> probably the standard that the trial court in the North Carolina 
>>> voter id case will apply).  Applying the test, the 5th Circuit 
>>> affirmed the trial court’s finding of a Section 2 violation. It 
>>> upheld the finding that the law will have a discriminatory impact on 
>>> minority voters—that is, minority voters are disproportionately 
>>> likely to lack one of the types of ID which are allowed under Texas 
>>> law. Then, applying the “totality of circumstances” 
>>> test//Gingles/Zimmer//Senate factors, the 5th Circuit found enough 
>>> evidence to sustain a finding that SB 14 “produces a discriminatory 
>>> result that is actionable because [it] . . . interact[s] with social 
>>> and historical conditions in Texas to cause an inequality in the 
>>> electoral opportunities enjoyed by African-Americans and Hispanic 
>>> voters.” Particularly interesting in this analysis is the question 
>>> whether Texas’s explanations for why it needed its law (antifraud, 
>>> voter confidence) were tenuous. The trial court found that they were 
>>> because the evidence did not support the need for voter id for 
>>> either of these purposes, and this factor worked in favor of finding 
>>> of a Section 2 violation. Also interesting is that the 5th Circuit 
>>> relied (as I anticipated <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73758>) on 
>>> the Supreme Court’s recent Texas housing case in finding enough 
>>> evidence of disparate impact. “As such, we conclude that the 
>>> district court did not clearly err in determining that SB 14 has a 
>>> discriminatory effect on minorities’ voting rights in violation of 
>>> Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As discussed below, we remand 
>>> for a consideration of the appropriate remedy in light of this 
>>> finding in the event that the discriminatory purpose finding is 
>>> different.”
>>>
>>> 3. */First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. /*Using the 
>>> principle of constitutional avoidance, the 5th Circuit refused to 
>>> consider whether the laws violated the fundamental right to vote, an 
>>> issue which could be revived if, for example, an en banc 5th Circuit 
>>> rejects the panel’s views on the Section 2 violation.
>>>
>>> 4. */Poll tax. /*The court rejected the poll tax argument, in part 
>>> because since the district court decision Texas amended its law to 
>>> get rid of a payment to get underlying documents to get a state 
>>> issued id. “As amended by SB 983, Texas law no longer imposes any 
>>> direct fee for any of the documentation required to obtain a 
>>> qualifying voter ID.” The court also held the indirect costs of 
>>> voting could not constitute a poll tax. The court added this: “This 
>>> record reveals that Plaintiffs and those who lack both SB 14 ID and 
>>> underlying documentation face more difficulty than many Texas voters 
>>> in obtaining SB 14 ID. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated 
>>> often struggle to gather the required documentation, make travel 
>>> arrangements and obtain time off from work to travel to the county 
>>> clerk or local registrar, and then to the DPS, all to receive an 
>>> EIC. These greater difficulties receive consideration in the Section 
>>> 2 discriminatory effect analysis, but Supreme Court jurisprudence 
>>> has not equated these difficulties, standing alone, to a poll tax.”
>>>
>>> 5. */Remedy. /*The 5th Circuit held that a remedy after a finding of 
>>> discriminatory effects should be narrower, and more deferential to 
>>> the state, than one where there is also a finding of discriminatory 
>>> purpose. The 5th Circuit strongly suggests that if the trial court 
>>> on remand finds no discriminatory purpose, it needs to consider a 
>>> narrower remedy than simply declaring the voter id law as something 
>>> which cannot be used under any circumstances:
>>>
>>> “Clearly, the Legislature wished to reduce the risk of in-person 
>>> voter fraud by strengthening the forms of identification presented 
>>> for voting. Simply reverting to the system in place before SB 14’s 
>>> passage would not fully respect these policy choices—it would allow 
>>> voters to cast ballots after presenting less secure forms of 
>>> identification like utility bills, bank statements, or 
>>> paychecks./See/TEX. ELEC. CODE§ 63.001(b) (West 2010). One 
>>> possibility would be to reinstate voter registration cards as 
>>> documents that qualify as acceptable identification under the Texas 
>>> Election Code. The court could also decree that, upon execution of 
>>> an affidavit that a person does not have an acceptable form of photo 
>>> identification, that person must be allowed to vote with their voter 
>>> registration card.” This considerably narrows the scope of a Section 
>>> 2 victory.
>>>
>>> 6.*/Timing./*//The court cautions that this case should not run up 
>>> against election deadlines, as it did last time, raising “Purcell 
>>> principle 
>>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>” 
>>> issues: “We urge the parties to work cooperatively with the district 
>>> court to provide a prompt resolution of this matter to avoid 
>>> election eve uncertainties and emergencies.”
>>>
>>> 7. */A Constitutional Challenge to Section 2 for the Supreme 
>>> Court//? /*Lurking in a footnote is the 5th Circuit’s rejection of 
>>> the argument that if Texas voter id law violates Section 2 of the 
>>> Voting Rights Act, then Section 2 is unconstitutional. The issue is 
>>> one the 5th Circuit likely won’t address, but it could come up for 
>>> the Supreme Court. (FN 24: “To the extent the State argues that the 
>>> “results” test is unconstitutional, we note that this court and many 
>>> others have upheld its constitutional validity./See, e.g./,/Vera/, 
>>> 517 U.S. at 990–91 (collecting cases upholding Section 2’s 
>>> constitutionality);/Jones/, 727 F.2d at 373–74. “Congressional power 
>>> to adopt prophylactic measures to vindicate the purposes of the 
>>> fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments is unquestioned” and “[o]n those 
>>> occasions when the Court has stricken enactments as exceeding 
>>> congressional power under the enforcement clauses of the fourteenth 
>>> or fifteenth amendments, the congressional objective has usually 
>>> deviated from the central purposes of those amendments—to ensure 
>>> black equality.”/Jones/, 727 F.2d at 373–74. We are bound by these 
>>> precedents to conclude that Section 2, as applied here, does not 
>>> deviate from that purpose.”).
>>>
>>> [/This post has been updated./]
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74972&title=Breaking%20and%20Analysis%3A%205th%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Violates%20Section%202%2C%20Remands%20on%20Question%20of%20Discriminatory%20Purpose&description=>
>>> Posted inelection administration 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Maine Court: Anti-Gay Marriage Group Must Disclose Donors”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74993>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:29 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74993>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> AP: 
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/04/us/ap-us-gay-marriage-donors.html?smid=tw-share>
>>>
>>>     Maine’s highest court on Tuesday rejected a national anti-gay
>>>     marriage group’s latest bid to shield the identities of the
>>>     donors who contributed to its effort to defeat the state’s gay
>>>     marriage law in 2009.
>>>
>>>     The National Organization for Marriage had sought permission to
>>>     delay submitting a campaign finance report that the Maine
>>>     Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices ordered
>>>     it to file last year when it fined the group $50,250 for its
>>>     involvement in overturning the law supportingsame-sex marriage
>>>     <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>six
>>>     years ago.
>>>
>>>     But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday that NOM can’t
>>>     put off filing the report and revealing its donor list until
>>>     after the court considers the group’s challenge of the
>>>     commission’s ruling because the justices said it’s unlikely that
>>>     the Washington D.C.-based organization will win its appeal.
>>>
>>> You can find the decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Courtat this 
>>> link 
>>> <http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2015/15me103no.pdf>.
>>>
>>> Next stop SCOTUS?
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74993&title=%E2%80%9CMaine%20Court%3A%20Anti-Gay%20Marriage%20Group%20Must%20Disclose%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “GOP suit: Florida redistricting law equals ‘thought policing'”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:17 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Politico 
>>> <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/gop-suit-florida-redistricting-law-equals-thought-policing-121039.html>on 
>>> a strange claim:
>>>
>>>     Two Florida Republican Party officials have filed a federal
>>>     lawsuit to block the state’s anti-gerrymandering constitutional
>>>     clauses, arguing the provisions limit First Amendment speech and
>>>     amount to “thought policing.”
>>>
>>>     The lawsuit, filed Tuesday night in the conservative-leaning
>>>     Pensacola division of the Northern District of Florida, comes
>>>     less than a week before the start of a special legislative
>>>     session to redraw some of the state’s 27 congressional districts.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74991&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20suit%3A%20Florida%20redistricting%20law%20equals%20%E2%80%98thought%20policing%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Two years after scandal, the IRS still struggling”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 10:57 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> WaPo 
>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/05/two-years-after-scandal-the-irs-still-struggling/?postshare=5231438796327970>:
>>>
>>>     The Senate Finance Committee will release on Wednesday a
>>>     bipartisan report on the 2013 scandal involving the Internal
>>>     Revenue Service targeting conservative groups.
>>>
>>>     Much will be made about what led to the controversy, but more
>>>     than two years later the agency appears no better able to handle
>>>     the growing crush of political nonprofits raising many millions
>>>     this election season.
>>>
>>>     The agency has shuffled its staffing, including the high-profile
>>>     retirement of Lois Lerner
>>>     <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/lois-lerner-no-contempt-charges-justice-department-116577.html>,
>>>     and taken steps to better manage the division that oversees
>>>     nonprofit applications. Those moves have decreased the chances
>>>     that the specific targeting leading to the scandal could be
>>>     repeated. But the agency is frozen by a hobbled budget and
>>>     hostile relationship with the committees that oversee it.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74970&title=%E2%80%9CTwo%20years%20after%20scandal%2C%20the%20IRS%20still%20struggling%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax 
>>> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “Rand Paul super PAC head indicted over alleged 2012 campaign
>>>     finance violations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74968>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 10:04 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74968>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> WaPo 
>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/rand-paul-super-pac-head-indicted-over-alleged-2012-campaign-finance-violations/?postshare=6501438794177524>:
>>>
>>>     Jesse Benton, a longtime ally of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who is
>>>     heading up a super PAC supporting his presidential campaign, was
>>>     indicted Wednesday on charges that he concealed payments to a
>>>     former Iowa state senator.
>>>
>>>     The charges stem froman alleged
>>>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/08/29/mcconnell-campaign-manager-jesse-benton-resigns-amid-federal-probe-into-2012-endorsement-for-pay-deal/>endorsement-for-pay
>>>     scheme
>>>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/endorsement-for-play-investigation-that-brought-kent-sorenson-guilty-plea-is-ongoing/>during
>>>     the 2012 presidential campaign of former Republican congressman
>>>     Ron Paul of Texas. Two others were also indicted.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74968&title=%E2%80%9CRand%20Paul%20super%20PAC%20head%20indicted%20over%20alleged%202012%20campaign%20finance%20violations%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>>
>>>
>>>     “A wealthy oligarchy of donors is dominating the 2016 election”
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74964>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:44 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74964>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> WaPo editorial 
>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html>:
>>>
>>>     THE UNITED States may be turning a corner in presidential
>>>     politics. Although the election itself is more than a year away,
>>>     the latest reports to the Federal Election Commission show that
>>>     a wealthy oligarchy of donors has come to dominate campaign
>>>     finance, particularly in the crowded Republican contest.Fewer
>>>     than 400 families are responsible for almost half the money
>>>     raised in the campaign so far
>>>     <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html>,
>>>     according to an analysis by the New York Times. This class of
>>>     wealthy patrons, some with new fortunes and others of
>>>     long-standing, is throwing money into campaigns, not of all
>>>     which will end happily. But the preeminence of this clan of
>>>     tycoons so early in the season is not a good sign.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74964&title=%E2%80%9CA%20wealthy%20oligarchy%20of%20donors%20is%20dominating%20the%202016%20election%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
>>>
>>>
>>>     WI John Doe Case Could Well Be Heading to #SCOTUS
>>>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74962>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:34 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74962>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Patrick Marley 
>>> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/john-doe-prosecutor-asks-state-supreme-court-to-reconsider-ruling-b99551002z1-320757271.html>for 
>>> the Journal Sentinel:
>>>
>>>     A special prosecutor this week asked Wisconsin’s high court to
>>>     reconsider its decision ending an investigation intoGov. Scott
>>>     Walker’s
>>>     <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>campaign,
>>>     in a sign he is considering taking the matter to the U.S.
>>>     Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>     Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz also asked the state Supreme
>>>     Court on Tuesday to stay itsruling last month
>>>     <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-ends-john-doe-probe-into-scott-walkers-campaign-b99535414z1-315784501.html>ending
>>>     the probe and requiring him to destroy evidence he collected in
>>>     the investigation,according to online court records
>>>     <http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=B113F086405FDD9E4B579DF21BF2E05C?caseNo=2014AP000296&cacheId=A31CBD36AE8AF236C9101E0C8E08A089&recordCount=1&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC>….
>>>
>>>     Schmitz can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review their decision
>>>     to stay the case, as well as the state Supreme Court’s finding
>>>     that issue groups and candidates can closely cooperate with each
>>>     other. Tuesday’s filing is the clearest sign he is considering
>>>     doing that.
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74962&title=WI%20John%20Doe%20Case%20Could%20Well%20Be%20Heading%20to%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Federal Court Upholds AL Ban on Certain Party PAC-to-PAC
>>>     Transfers <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74960>
>>>
>>> Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:32 am 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74960>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Alabama Democratic Conference v. Strange 
>>> <http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150804889.xml/Alabama%20Democratic%20Conference%20v.%20Strange>:
>>>
>>>     Alabama’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits a
>>>     political action committee (“PAC”) from making contributions,
>>>     expenditures, or transfers of funds to another PAC, except that
>>>     a PAC that is not a “principal campaign committee” may make
>>>     contributions, expenditures, or transfers of funds to a
>>>     principal campaign committee. ALA. CODE § 17-5-15(b). This law
>>>     was enacted in response to concerns that donors were concealing
>>>     their contributions to candidates by “laundering” those
>>>     contributions through multiple PACs before the donation finally
>>>     arrived with a candidate. The broad language of the statute
>>>     prohibits all contributions, expenditures, and transfers of
>>>     funds between PACs, except as noted above, including those from
>>>     one PAC to a second PAC where the money is to be used solely for
>>>     “independent expenditures.” The Alabama Democratic Conference
>>>     (“the ADC”) asserts the prohibition on its ability to receive
>>>     contributions to be used solely for independent expenditures
>>>     violates the PAC’s First Amendment rights. At the outset, the
>>>     court notes that the ADC does not challenge ALA. CODE §
>>>     17-5-15(b) on its face, but rather brings an as applied
>>>     challenge. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 29-43)….
>>>
>>>     In this case, the court finds that the ban on contributions,
>>>     expenditures, and transfers of funds to the ADC from other PACs
>>>     is closely drawn to further the State’s anti-corruption
>>>     interest. In light of lack of evidence of organizational
>>>     separation or other safeguards to prevent contributions that are
>>>     nominally for independent expenditures ending up in the
>>>     Candidate Account, the court cannot say that a more narrowly
>>>     tailored solution, such a limit on the amount another PAC could
>>>     contribute to ADC, would adequately protect the State’s
>>>     interest. Given the lack of safeguards, even a small donation
>>>     could end up in the wrong account. Further, the impact of the
>>>     PAC-to-PAC transfer ban on the ADC’s associational rights is
>>>     minimal. The ADC is still able to receive unlimited
>>>     contributions from individuals; it can still make unlimited
>>>     contributions to candidates; and it can make unlimited
>>>     independent expenditures. Because ALA. CODE § 17-5-15(b) is
>>>     closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important state interest,
>>>     the ADC’s as applied constitutional challenge must fail./See
>>>     Catholic Leadership oal. of Texas,/764 F.3d at 445 (“Likewise,
>>>     Texas’s complete ban on Plaintiffs’ proposed contribution is
>>>     closely drawn to its anticircumvention interest insofar as
>>>     Plaintiffs have failed to provide any clear safeguard that
>>>     sufficiently assures that no part of the corporate contribution
>>>     will end up being transferred to a candidate.”).
>>>
>>> Share 
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74960&title=Federal%20Court%20Upholds%20AL%20Ban%20on%20Certain%20Party%20PAC-to-PAC%20Transfers&description=>
>>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Rick Hasen
>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://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 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150806/35a90ba0/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/20150806/35a90ba0/attachment.png>


View list directory