[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/10/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sun Aug 9 21:27:34 PDT 2015
President Obama Weekly Address Commemorates Voting Rights Act 50th
Anniversary <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75169>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 8:50 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75169>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Watch. <http://t.co/kNElqT7vRd>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75169&title=President%20Obama%20Weekly%20Address%20Commemorates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%2050th%20Anniversary&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Most Gerrymandered State in America; Study shows Wisconsin most
gerrymandered in 42 years. Case is filed in federal court.”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75167>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 7:49 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75167>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“Murphy’s Law” column.
<http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/08/06/murphys-law-the-most-gerrymandered-state-in-america/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75167&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Most%20Gerrymandered%20State%20in%20America%3B%20Study%20shows%20Wisconsin%20most%20gerrymandered%20in%2042%20years.%20Case%20is%20filed%20in%20federal%20court.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Take 3: Lawmakers try to fix ‘tainted’ lines for Congress”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75165>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 7:42 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75165>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/article30448554.html>on
FL redistricting.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75165&title=%E2%80%9CTake%203%3A%20Lawmakers%20try%20to%20fix%20%E2%80%98tainted%E2%80%99%20lines%20for%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“A Limited Victory for Voting Rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75163>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 7:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75163>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lincoln Caplan writes
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-limited-victory-for-voting-rights-in-texas>for
The New Yorker on the Texas ruling.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75163&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Limited%20Victory%20for%20Voting%20Rights%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>
“Happy birthday to the Voting Rights Act”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75161>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:50 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75161>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo editorial.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/happy-birthday-to-the-voting-rights-act/2015/08/09/bdfe449c-3c71-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75161&title=%E2%80%9CHappy%20birthday%20to%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“It’s Not the First Time Donald Trump Has Flirted With a Third-Party
Run” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75159>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:47 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75159>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/09/its-not-the-first-time-trump-has-flirted-with-a-third-party-run/?ref=politics>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75159&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20Not%20the%20First%20Time%20Donald%20Trump%20Has%20Flirted%20With%20a%20Third-Party%20Run%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,third parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“Sen. Cory Booker Fears ‘Voting Rights Act Is Under Threat'”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75157>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75157>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ABC News “This Week”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-cory-booker-fears-voting-rights-act-threat/story?id=32977021>reports.
(Video interview)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75157&title=%E2%80%9CSen.%20Cory%20Booker%20Fears%20%E2%80%98Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%20Under%20Threat%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Breitbart Staffers Believe Trump Has Given Money To Site For
Favorable Coverage” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75155>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75155>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
McKay Coppins reports for Buzzfeed.
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/breitbart-staffers-believe-trump-has-given-money-to-site-for?utm_term=.lbx0jN5mv#.kll4lAGjW> If
this is true (and I have no idea if it is), it would raise some serious
campaign finance issues. The media exemption to the ban on corporate
contributions/coordinated spending with candidates does not apply to
media owned or controlled by a candidate.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75155&title=%E2%80%9CBreitbart%20Staffers%20Believe%20Trump%20Has%20Given%20Money%20To%20Site%20For%20Favorable%20Coverage%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Federal trial in Winston-Salem could determine meaning of U.S.
Voting Rights Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75153>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75153>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Hewlett writes
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/federal-trial-in-winston-salem-could-determine-meaning-of-u/article_4314bb8b-34ed-59cc-a3e5-f3e2bb05cfb0.html#.VcbTlHx0AXU.twitter> his
wrapup of the three-week North Carolina voting trial:
The past and the present merged into one during a three-week federal
trial on North Carolina’s election law that ended just a week before
the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75153&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20trial%20in%20Winston-Salem%20could%20determine%20meaning%20of%20U.S.%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Corrections to NYT Magazine Piece on 50th Anniversary of Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75151>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75151>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/pageoneplus/corrections-august-9-2015.html?_r=0>:
Anarticle
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html>last
Sunday about the 50-year fight over the Voting Rights Act referred
incompletely to the significance of Georgia’s revised voter-ID Law.
While it did include a provision allowing those without ID to file
provisional ballots, the more relevant feature involved offering
free voter-identification cards to those who needed them. The
article also misidentified the court that upheld the revised
voter-ID law. It is the Georgia Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court
of the United States. The article also misidentified the location of
the residence of a member of the New Black Panther Party who was
accused of intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station in
2008. He lived in a house a few blocks away from the polling place,
not in the building that housed the polling station. In addition,
the article misspelled the surname of a state senator who helped
pass North Carolina’s sweeping new voting law. He is Tom Apodaca,
not Apadoca. And a picture with an accompanying timeline was
published in error. It showed President Johnson signing the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, on July 2 of that year — not the Voting Rights
Act. A picture of Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act, on Aug. 6,
1965, can be found at nytimes.com/magazine
<http://nytimes.com/magazine>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75151&title=Corrections%20to%20NYT%20Magazine%20Piece%20on%2050th%20Anniversary%20of%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Ban on knowing lies in political campaigns violates the
Massachusetts constitution” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75149>
Posted onAugust 9, 2015 6:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75149>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eugene Volokh blogs
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/06/ban-on-knowing-lies-in-political-campaigns-violates-the-massachusetts-constitution/>on the
decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in /Commonwealth v.
Lucas
<http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11830.pdf>./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75149&title=%E2%80%9CBan%20on%20knowing%20lies%20in%20political%20campaigns%20violates%20the%20Massachusetts%20constitution%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Voting Discrimination Still Exists, So How Did Chief Justice
Roberts Unravel the VRA?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75147>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 2:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75147>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gerry Hebert and Nate Blevins blog.
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/voting-discrimination-still-exists-so-how-did-chief-justice-roberts-unravel-vra>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75147&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Discrimination%20Still%20Exists%2C%20So%20How%20Did%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20Unravel%20the%20VRA%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Voting Rights Act is 50 years old. In North Carolina, its
legacy hangs in the balance.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75145>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 2:12 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75145>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Greg Sargent interviews Chris Brook
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/07/the-voting-rights-act-is-50-years-old-in-north-carolina-its-legacy-hangs-in-the-balance/>of
the ACLU about the case.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75145&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20is%2050%20years%20old.%20In%20North%20Carolina%2C%20its%20legacy%20hangs%20in%20the%20balance.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Donna Edwards breaks with party over redistricting again”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75143>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 2:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75143>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/donna-edwards-breaks-with-party-over-redistricting-again/2015/08/07/4e8de0b8-3d11-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html>:
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) is breaking with other Democrats again
over redistricting, saying she’s open to an independent commission
proposed by Gov. Larry Hogan (R).
“I have long supported redistricting reforms to end the damage
partisan gerrymandering does to our democracy,” she said in a
statement. “I look forward to reviewing Governor Hogan’s
announcement to see whether it is truly independent of partisan
politics.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75143&title=%E2%80%9CDonna%20Edwards%20breaks%20with%20party%20over%20redistricting%20again%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Scott Walker says he didn’t know he was a John Doe target”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75141>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 10:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75141>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-says-he-didnt-know-he-was-a-john-doe-target-b99552520z1-321053741.html>:
Gov. Scott Walker
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>says
he didn’t know he was a target of the now-closed John Doe probe
until this week, whennewly released court documents
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/despite-denials-scott-walker-was-target-of-probe-in-2011-b99551687z1-320842161.html>showed
he was under investigation for misconduct in office.
“The information they said, the paper they released was new to us,”
Walker said at a campaign stop here the day after Thursday’s GOP
presidential debate. “We point out this is something that’s been
over for more than two years and it’s a done deal. It’s been done
for quite some time. The document…they released the other day, we
did not have (that) information. Again…a Democratic district
attorney closed this case more than two years ago.”
Records filed Wednesday in federal court revealed Walker was under
criminal investigation in 2011 for misconduct in office — even as he
insisted he wasn’t — over a proposed real estate deal when he was
Milwaukee County executive.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75141&title=%E2%80%9CScott%20Walker%20says%20he%20didn%E2%80%99t%20know%20he%20was%20a%20John%20Doe%20target%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Steps Congress must take to ensure true freedom”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75137>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 10:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75137>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Janai Nelson
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/05/steps-congress-must-take-to-ensure-true-freedom/>for
Reuters Opinion.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75137&title=%E2%80%9CSteps%20Congress%20must%20take%20to%20ensure%20true%20freedom%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Voting Rights Act at 50: Why We Still Need It — All of It”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75135>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 10:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75135>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Liz Kennedy writes
<http://prospect.org/article/voting-rights-act-50-why-we-still-need-it-all-it>for
TAP.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75135&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20at%2050%3A%20Why%20We%20Still%20Need%20It%20%E2%80%94%20All%20of%20It%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Why A Victory For The Voting Rights Act In Texas Feels More Like A
Defeat” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75132>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 9:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75132>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cristian Farias writes
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-a-victory-for-the-voting-rights-act-in-texas-was-also-a-loss_55c3b265e4b0d9b743db5784>for
HuffPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75132&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20A%20Victory%20For%20The%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20In%20Texas%20Feels%20More%20Like%20A%20Defeat%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>
Breaking: Divided DC Circuit Queues Up New Major Obamacare Case for
Possible #SCOTUS Review <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75125>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 9:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75125>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In 61 pages of dueling opinions
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/origination.pdf>, the
D.C. Circuit has rejected a request to take en banc yet another
challenge to the Obamacare law, one grounded in the “Origination Clause”
of the Constitution (providing that all bills which raise revenue must
originate in the House of Representatives). The extensive dissent from
rehearing en banc, written by SCOTUS shortlister Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
and joined by Judges Henderson, Brown, and Griffith, raises and
originalist and textualist argument that is sure to attract the
attention of at least some of the Court’s conservatives making it a
serious candidate for Supreme Court review in the next term. The main
reason the Court might not want to take the case is that the dissenters
would reach the same result as the majority (yet still take the case to
resolve the main issue). [Update:Challengers have announced
<http://blog.pacificlegal.org/obamacare-plfs-next-stop-is-the-supreme-court/>they
will take the case to the Supreme Court.]
The issue presented in the case is arcane, though perhaps not as arcane
as the “established by the state” fight in King v. Burwell, the last
Obamacare challenge. Like King, the question comes out of the rushed
and partisan way in which the ACA got out of Congress.
For the judges who concurred in the majority decision not to hear the
case on banc, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the main question
under the origination clause is whether the /purpose/of the bill is to
raise revenue. These judges find that the purpose was to provide health
care, not to raise revenue. For the dissenters, the test that the
majority relied upon is wrong, and that the bill /was/one to raise
revenue. The reason the dissenters agree is that they find that the bill
originated in the House.
Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent, which explains why en banc review was called
for even though the result would not change, explains why the case also
might be attractive to some Supreme Court Justices for review:
In my view, the Affordable Care Act complied with the Origination
Clause, but not for the reason articulated by the three-judge panel
opinion. The panel opinion concluded that the Affordable Care Act
was not a revenue-raising bill for purposes of the Origination
Clause and therefore did not have to originate in the House. In my
respectful view, that conclusion is untenable. The Affordable Care
Act established new subsidies for the purchase of health insurance
and expanded the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. Those
new subsidies and expanded entitlements cost an enormous amount of
money. So as not to increase the annual budget deficit and the
overall national debt, the Act imposed numerous taxes to raise
revenue. Lots of revenue. $473 billion in revenue over 10 years. It
is difficult to say with a straight face that a bill
raising $473/billion/in revenue is not a “Bill for raising Revenue.”
The Affordable Care Act therefore was a revenue-raising bill subject
to the Origination Clause. That said, the Act did in fact originate
in the House, as required by the Clause. Although the original House
bill was amended and its language replaced in the Senate, such
Senate amendments are permissible under the Clause’s text and precedent.
So in concluding that the Affordable Care Act complied with the
Origination Clause, the panel opinion reached the right bottom line,
but relied on what I see as a faulty rationale. Does such a case
still warrant en banc review? Oftentimes no, but here yes. The panel
opinion sets a constitutional precedent that is too important to let
linger and metastasize. Although no doubt viewed by some today as a
trivial or anachronistic annoyance, the Origination Clause was
an integral part of the Framers’ blueprint for protecting the people
from excessive federal taxation. It is true that the Framers’
decision to grant the Senate a broad amendment power gave the
Origination Clause less bite than it otherwise might have had. But
the Clause nonetheless has been important historically and remains
vital in the modern legislative process. By newly exempting a
substantial swath of tax legislation from the Origination Clause,
the panel opinion degrades the House’s origination authority in a
way contrary to the Constitution’s text and history, and contrary
to congressional practice. As a result, the panel opinion upsets the
longstanding balance of power between the House and the Senate
regarding the initiation of tax legislation. Therefore, I would
grant rehearing en banc. In my respectful view, the en banc Court
should vacate the panel opinion and rule for the Government on the
ground that the Affordable Care Act originated in the House and
thereby complied with the Origination Clause.
I could see this interesting Justice Scalia (whose alternative view of
the origination clause gets play by Judge Kavanaugh), Justice Thomas,
and potentially Justice Alito. Do they get a fourth vote for cert. from
CJ Roberts or Justice Kennedy, and would they care whether they’d be
likely to get both of them on the merits in a final ruling? This is
unclear, as is it unclear how strategically these Justices will vote on
the cert. decision.
But it is a fascinating question.
[This post has been significantly revised and edited.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75125&title=Breaking%3A%20Divided%20DC%20Circuit%20Queues%20Up%20New%20Major%20Obamacare%20Case%20for%20Possible%20%23SCOTUS%20Review&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
Questions Remain After Court Rules Texas Voter ID Law Violates
Voting Rights Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75123>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 9:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75123>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here’s the audio
<http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/questions-remain-after-court-rules-texas-voter-id-law-violates-voting-rights-act/>of
my talk with Texas Standard.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75123&title=Questions%20Remain%20After%20Court%20Rules%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>
“Corrine Brown seeks to stop redistricting in court, says it dilutes
minority voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75121>
Posted onAugust 7, 2015 8:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75121>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Orlando Sentinel
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-brown-sues-to-stop-florida-redistricting-20150806-post.html>:
Implying that a secret, racist agenda may be in play to eliminate
Congressional districts drawn to represent black voters, U.S. Rep.
Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to
stop Florida’s redistricting effort.
On Wednesday the Florida Senate released a proposed map that would
redraw many of Florida’s 27 Congressional districts to comply with
an order from the Florida Supreme Court. That order came following a
lawsuit that charged the state’s 2011 redistricting map had been
gerrymandered, drawn to assure that certain seats would always be
won by one party or another.
Brown’s district would be most affected under the proposed map. And
her district was specifically cited for change in the Florida
Supreme Court order. The new proposal would lop off District 5’s
snake-like appendage that meanders from Jacksonville south to Orange
County, taking in black communities along the way. Instead, the map
proposes District 5 stretch due west from Jacksonville to Tallahassee.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75121&title=%E2%80%9CCorrine%20Brown%20seeks%20to%20stop%20redistricting%20in%20court%2C%20says%20it%20dilutes%20minority%20voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
--
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/20150809/2edf7a90/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150809/2edf7a90/attachment.png>
View list directory