[EL] The lens of race and the role of politics
Morgan Kousser
kousser at hss.caltech.edu
Thu Aug 6 23:55:10 PDT 2015
Jim,
There have been two periods in which actions on discrimination against
African-Americans in politics were not partisan issues. According to
David Bateman's Princeton Ph.D. thesis, before 1820, Jeffersonians
actually cast more votes in favor of black suffrage than Federalists
did. That shifted with the NY Constitutional Convention of 1821, and
the connection of Democrats and black disfranchisement became ever
stronger in the antebellum era. By 1860, virtually all Democrats were
opponents of black suffrage, and they continued to be so for another 60
or 70 years.
The second period is around 1965, when the vast majority of southern
Democrats were still opponents of black political equality, while many
Republicans in Congress were not. It was the dominance of non-southern
Democrats within the party in that period that ended automatic
Democratic party opposition to racial equality in politics and that made
the VRA achievable. Once southern whites shifted almost completely to
the party of the former Yankee Invaders in 1994, racial policy and party
again cohered completely. Southern Members of Congress now wag the
Republican dog as they used to wag the Democratic dog.
On the larger point, I think it's a mistake to separate race and party
completely and to treat party as causally prior to race. The
Reconstruction name for the Republicans, "Black Republicans," perhaps
captures this best. To Democrats, it was the comparatively pro-black
policy stance of the Republican party in the 19th century that made it
anathema. I'd argue that it is the pro-minority (blacks, but also
Latinos and gays) stance of the Democrats that so enrages the Republican
base, particularly in the South today. ("THEY are taking over; WE have
to recapture America.") Accordingly, as in the First Reconstruction,
when ethnic minorities are the core of the strength of one party, the
most effective political tactics of the "white party" strike at the most
basic supporters of the "black party."
There is much more to be written about all this, but perhaps this short
note will provide some basic facts.
Morgan
On 8/6/2015 8:39 AM, James Blacksher wrote:
> 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®ion=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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
William R. Kenan, Jr. Prof. of History and Social Science, Caltech
surface mail: 228-77 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125-7700
phone 626-395-4080, fax 626-405-9841
home page: <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~kousser/Kousser.html<http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Ekousser/Kousser.html>>
. . . without the clarity that makes doubt productive, historians will never be able to fulfill their highest moral responsibility, to build a better world . . .
-- from “The New Postmodern Southern Political History”<http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Ekousser/book%20reviews/The%20New%20Postmodern%20Southern%20Political%20History.pdf>
Perfection . . . in any institution is a dangerous myth; there is only the repeated correction of imperfections. As long as there is discrimination, there will always be more work to do.
-- from "The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act<http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Ekousser/racial%20discrimination/Strange%20and%20Ironic%20Career,%20as%20printed.pdf>"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150806/c11baeb6/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/c11baeb6/attachment.png>
View list directory