[EL] Breaking: TX seeks en banc review in voter id case/more news
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Aug 28 17:14:19 PDT 2015
Breaking: TX Seeks En Banc Review in 5th Circuit Voter ID Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75687>
Posted onAugust 28, 2015 5:12 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75687>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the petition for en banc reviewhere
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/veasey-en-banc-petition.pdf>.
The effect of this filing is to stay the mandate and to put the remand
of the case on hold, at least for now. It is not clear if the 5th
Circuit will take this en banc (it is not clear if the votes are there),
but my guess is that if it does not that Texas is likely to ask the
Supreme Court to review the case, and I think such review would be
fairly likely to resolve issues about the proper scope of Voting Rights
Act section 2 in vote denial cases.
Here is Texas’s explanation for why it believes en banc review is proper:
En banc review is necessary to maintain the uniformity of the
Court’s decisions and to consider questions of exceptional
importance. In holding that SB14 violates Voting Rights Act §2 based
on disparate rates of ID possession, socioeconomic disparities,
and historical discrimination—without any evidence of depressed
political participation by minority voters—the panel’s decision
conflicts with this Court’s decision in League of United Latin
American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th
Cir. 1993) (en banc), the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Frank v.
Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014), and the Ninth Circuit’s
decision in Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012)
(en banc). The panel’s expansive interpretation of §2 presents two
questions of exceptional importance: first, whether the text of §2
imposes liability without proof that the challenged voting
qualification causes any inequality in voting opportunities on
account of race; and second, if it does, whether the statute exceeds
Congress’s power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.
The panel’s decision creates two additional conflicts. By
characterizing the policy behind SB14 as “tenuous” because in-person
voter fraud is “rare,” the panel’s decision conflicts with Crawford
v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), and Voting for
America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013). And by
vacating the district court’s finding that SB14 was enacted with a
racially discriminatory purpose, but remanding for further
consideration even after a complete trial and suggesting that the
district court could reopen the evidence, the panel’s decision
conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Meche v. Doucet, 777 F.3d
237, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2015), and Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d
641, 658 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2859 (2015).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75687&title=Breaking%3A%20TX%20Seeks%20En%20Banc%20Review%20in%205th%20Circuit%20Voter%20ID%20Case&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>
Please Unregister from Voting So Property Owners Can Vote
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75685>
Posted onAugust 28, 2015 2:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75685>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bizarre
story<http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/college-student-would-be-sole-voter-in-cid-sales-tax/article_6702c44b-0243-51f8-861c-1df0b462cd92.html>out
of Missouri:
A mistake by representatives of the Business Loop 70 Community
Improvement District means a sales tax increase the district needs
to thrive will require approval by a single University of Missouri
student.
On Feb. 28, Jen Henderson, 23, became the sole registered voter
living within the community improvement district, or CID, meaning
she is the only person who would vote on a half-cent sales tax
increase for the district.
The Columbia City Council established the district on a 5-2 vote in
April in response to a petition from a group of property owners in
the CID boundaries. The “qualified voters” in a CID are capable of
levying various taxes or assessments within the boundaries of the
district to fund improvement projects. Under state law, decisions to
impose sales taxes in a CID are to be made by registered voters
living in the district boundaries. If no such registered voters are
present, property owners vote….
Henderson said she doesn’t want her involvement with the CID to be
private. She said Gartner initially approached her in June to
explain the goals of the CID and ask her to consider “unregistering
her vote” so the property owners could make the decision. The more
she researched the situation, Henderson said, things “just didn’t
seem to be as good as they were saying to me at first.”
Gartner “tried to get me to unregister, and that’s pretty
manipulative,” Henderson said. “The district plan and the district
border is manipulative, too.”
Gartner said she did nothing illegal when contacting Henderson and
was surprised Henderson viewed her contact negatively.
Noren said she spoke with Henderson about withdrawing her
registration but that the clerk’s office only does so “very
occasionally” and does not recommend it.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75685&title=Please%20Unregister%20from%20Voting%20So%20Property%20Owners%20Can%20Vote&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Convention a basic N.Y. right” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75683>
Posted onAugust 28, 2015 2:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75683>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
J.H. Snider
<http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Convention-a-basic-N-Y-right-6465089.php>for
the /Times-Union./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75683&title=%E2%80%9CConvention%20a%20basic%20N.Y.%20right%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“On ‘dumbing down’ the Democratic debate”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75681>
Posted onAugust 28, 2015 11:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75681>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Larry Lessig responds
<https://medium.com/equal-citizens/on-dumbing-down-the-democratic-debate-89039c3f498e>toTom
Mann’s post
<https://igs.berkeley.edu/news/election-2016-dumbing-down-american-politics-lawrence-lessig-and-the-presidency>of
yesterday:
I get the appeal in blaming Republicans. I understand the attraction
in good vs evil stories. I see the strength in the partisan rally. I
get it’s a great strategy for winning elections.
But it is not a strategy for governing. We won’t have a functioning
government until we create a functioning democracy. And it is
precisely because of the rhetoric of Republicans such as Trump, that
we have a chance now to build a campaign that rallies America to
this obvious truth. There will be citizens of good conscience who
argue against the idea of wealth equality. There will be liberals as
well as conservatives who argue against the notion of speech
equality. But who is going to explain to America that citizens do
not deserve equal representation as citizens? Who’s going to defend
the grotesque system that gives 400 families so much political
power? If there is one truth for us that is self-evident, it is that
a representative democracy should represent us equally. And if there
is one truth that cannot be denied, it is that America’s democracy
doesn’t.
Focusing America on that core principle may well be “dumbing down”
the debate. I don’t think so. I think its a way to elevate the
debate above the stupid partisanship that has disillusioned so many.
I think it’s time to fight for a big idea that Americans actually
believe and that was the core idea of our Republic: that
representative democracy represent its citizens equally. I think we
could win that fight. And if we do, we would win something much
bigger than yet another partisan election.
I’m happy to be called “absurd” and “foolish” for standing up for
that ideal, and proposing an idea to get it. But when I am, I’m not
sure it is I who am “dumbing down” the democratic debate. I’m not
sure that’s debate at all.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75681&title=%E2%80%9COn%20%E2%80%98dumbing%20down%E2%80%99%20the%20Democratic%20debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“How Larry Lessig’s presidential campaign changed the campaign
reform agenda” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75679>
Posted onAugust 28, 2015 11:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75679>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Schmitt
<http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/8/28/9217355/larry-lessig-campaign-reform>for
Vox.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75679&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Larry%20Lessig%E2%80%99s%20presidential%20campaign%20changed%20the%20campaign%20reform%20agenda%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
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/20150828/811f1d57/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/20150828/811f1d57/attachment.png>
View list directory