[EL] Blowback from Rick's Slate piece

[Easley, Billy (Paul)]

"And what of the VRAA? Is the refusal to pass a fix for the coverage formula -- or even to debate alternatives to the deceased Section 4 -- not a substantively partisan, as opposed to a superficially partisan, issue today? In 2006, James Sensenbrenner helped lead the charge for reauthorization and George W Bush signed it as I recall. Today, the same party won't even engage on reforming the key provision of the VRA. There's obviously a political calculation there and it's not just based on taking a superficial public stand."

I try not to comment on this listserv often, but this is a gross oversimplification of conservative critiques of the VRAA. If you care about that issue then debate it. Don’t just accuse people of being mindlessly partisan.

From: Jon Sherman <jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com<mailto:jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:42 PM
To: Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>
Cc: "law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. edu" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Blowback from Rick's Slate piece

And what of the VRAA? Is the refusal to pass a fix for the coverage formula -- or even to debate alternatives to the deceased Section 4 -- not a substantively partisan, as opposed to a superficially partisan, issue today? In 2006, James Sensenbrenner helped lead the charge for reauthorization and George W Bush signed it as I recall. Today, the same party won't even engage on reforming the key provision of the VRA. There's obviously a political calculation there and it's not just based on taking a superficial public stand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150609/cb349b1b/attachment.html>