[EL] VRA and DOJ during redistricting

[Rick Hasen]

Thanks Justin. I should have been clearer that this was a perception or 
fear I heard from some Republicans, not necessarily matched by what DOJ 
did.  Further, I heard much more grousing about DOJ preclearance fights 
on non-redistricting issues, such as the South Carolina and Texas voter 
id laws (both of which were fought to three-judge courts in DC).


On 8/13/15 9:19 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> 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>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150813/96232117/attachment.html>