[EL] VRA and DOJ during redistricting

[Justin Levitt]

If a Democratic DOJ in office during a redistricting year gave 
Republicans more partisan reasons to oppose a broader voting rights act, 
it's unlikely to have been based on anything the DOJ actually did.

As I testified 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/USCCR%20testimony.pdf> to the US 
Civil Rights Commission, the DOJ did not object to *_any_* statewide 
plan filed administratively (and of the statewide plans in court, it 
objected only to Texas's congressional and state house districts -- 
which, as it turns out, was validated by the court itself).  Indeed, in 
2011, jurisdictions submitted preclearance requests for at least 1139 
plans.  The DOJ objected to 3 (a board of supervisors plan and election 
commission plan from Amite County, Mississippi, and a police jury plan 
from East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana).  And at least as of 2012, 
requested more information with respect to only 25 others.  This is not 
out of line with past cycles (if anything, it's a lower rate of objection).

If there's a reason to believe that the DOJ in a Democratic 
administration was acting differently (and in a fashion causing more 
concern to Republican lawmakers) than the DOJ in a Republican 
administration with respect to redistricting, you're sure not seeing it 
in the numbers.  Maybe there was something in the substance (maybe), 
though I'm not aware of any state officials drawing attention to such a 
thing in the redistricting arena (and one would think there would be 
political incentive to do so, if there were there there).  Increased 
conflict driven by the fact of Democratic control, alone, is a narrative 
without facts.

Justin

-- 
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

On 8/13/2015 8:29 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     “Nine Years Ago, Republicans Favored Voting Rights. What
>     Happened?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75287>
>
> Posted onAugust 12, 2015 7:08 pm 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75287>byRick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jim Rutenberg follow up forNYT magazine. 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/magazine/nine-years-ago-republicans-favored-voting-rights-what-happened.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0>
>
> As with Rutenberg’s earlier piece, I think this one really misses the 
> partisan element of the story, suggesting this Republican opposition 
> is really all motivated by race. I make that claim that the analysis 
> needs more nuance inthis Slate 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>, 
> and more broadly in myRace or Party? 
> piece<http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/>at 
> the /Harvard Law Review Forum./
>
> Also, as I explain in 2006 the writing was already on the wall that 
> realignment was causing the Republicans to have partisan reasons to 
> oppose a broad voting rights act. This trend only accelerated with the 
> first Democratic DOJ in office during a redistricting year dealing 
> with preclearance.
>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150813/f0f88fed/attachment.html>