[EL] SCOTUS order in NC case
Ilya Shapiro
IShapiro at cato.org
Sat Feb 20 03:58:31 PST 2016
Once the Court asked for a response to the stay motion, and given how long it was taking, the writing seemed to be on the wall (possibly with a dissent being written by Scalia?) - though beats me why given the recent application of the Purcell principle.
Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
fax. (202) 842-3490
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
Cato Supreme Court Review: http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
Watch our 2015 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court Review/Preview: http://www.cato.org/events/14th-annual-constitution-day
See me defend the right to keep and bear arms on the Colbert Report: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340923/july-08-2010/automatics-for-the-people---ilya-shapiro---jackie-hilly
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:40 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] SCOTUS order in NC case
I'm having doubts about my point about the partisan gerrymandering. I guess it depends on how we would count Justice Kennedy's vote in such a case. Probably more likely it would be a 4-4. Do others see it this way?
On 2/19/16 10:20 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Breaking: SCOTUS, Without Noted Dissent, Denies Stay in NC Redistricting Case. What Does It Mean?<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0e6x0SyM--qemjhOUOOrKrhKMCCyOVtwSztxdd5BNZUSztxdd5BOXVJ6X2qqb9EVssdOEjRqkqwGSPHM04TrpRU02rhpLUWPz_nV5MQsKnd7ab_nKnjjhsVBBUQsCzBwtvG8FHnjlKYNOEuvkzaT0QSyrhpdTdTdw0_f-QVlwvFwwvkzM072iNPRQm3hOrfQMnY_XjBm1sxlK5LE2AfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwSrpo7nd79I5-Aq83iSd1kQKCy0o4wM2gCc6y2Ikfyq89gd40c4zh1rqurpjdYNl9EGty>
Posted on February 19, 2016 7:08 pm<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoO921J5xZYQsICzBNBATsSztxdd5BOX1J6X2qqbbzXNJ6X2qqbbBTPqdS4QQmjhOUUrBgDGQER1lJDnw09KSPHM04SyPvNRD7-LObxEVsKqekn-LsKCCyVPbbNEVd7b0W_khjmKCHtVzBgY-F6lK1FJcSyOrKrKr01-vZFOH0_j10-F7w0e4BzDHEI6zASvFwLV_SDaI2V2Hsbvg58uJIpG_2ps-l9QVKQKZ1ISOMeKqejobZ8Qg6BIq2FFtd40M91w4xcod45oEv4Qgiwq80o96y2SQYSOCrPN4qzXd> by Rick Hasen<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS920Qrhovvd7b9EVsppdTdETojjhpsKMrhKMCCyOU-YrhKMCCyOVtYSztxdd5AQsKe6Vk9WJadglrpRU02rJIWY01dEITYtpN_HYyUqenbCzB5_HTbFFEKsOOYqejhOMeLR4kRHFGTuoVkffGhBrwqrpdEICXCXCM0vD_qsGMfQMgfGhU03xbmVAWNepdDWob-vZFOH0KgGT2TQ1i7Hr6qLMCnfBiterJbLgrdII3HCzAS2_id41Fr6wGqnjh0c2go18j63h1ma7Nd44E6y062hEwJJfdIFCVbTQrCm_>
(I knew this would happen while I was (1) on a plane and (2) just finished my ELB blogging for the night.)
The Supreme Court, without noted dissent, has denied the stay<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIq6jqb3XVEVpd7bzb9KVJ6X2qqbbBS3qdS4QQmn7TzqdS4QQmnbLCQrI9FEICzBNMTaxflFhG2HreL00jtJDnw09J5C_zHefZvAn3hOVsQsELZuVtdd5PCmnzhOqem1R-EyCJtdmXP7axVZicHs3jr1J5ATsTsSjDdqympcNas_zO-m9NBgzYA8v7ajSrtc7nKYesd7abzyrdNParRYm9RDn4jp-C2_D_qsGMbAaJMJZ0kxWSNCHY9BPVkDjCXiXQ6Prb0WVEVdwLQzh0qmNEaCBQQg30A60i4NwQglyxYjh1a1Ew1wAq8brjPrapJ8F5f3yPB30f> in the North Carolina redistricting case. What does this mean?
1. Before the death of Justice Scalia, I had thought the Court would grant the stay, not because there would be a majority of Justices who would necessarily agree on the merits, but because there were likely at least 5 who would see the problem with changing the rules so close to the election (absentee ballots had already been voted in some races). (This is the "Purcell principle." If the Court divided 5-4 before Scalia, it could now be evenly divided without Scalia. Because the Court is so opaque<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPow92gwrhovvd7b9EVsppdTdETojjhpsKMrhKMCCyOU-YrhKMCCyOVtYSztxdd5AQsKe6Vk9WJadglrpRU02rJIWY01dEITYtpN_HYyUqenbCzB5_HTbFFEKsOOYqejhOMeLR4kRHFGTuoVkffGhBrwqrvdEICXCXCM0vD_qsGMfQMgfGhU03x9oUsqejhOMCrfQMnY_XjBm1sxlK5LE2AfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwSrpo7nd79I5-Aq83iSd1kQKCy0o4wM2gCc6y2Ikfyq89gd40c4zh1rqurpjdS6NX>, especially on its 'shadow docket," we don't know what the vote count is. It could be 4-4, it could be 3-5 or 0-8. Justice Scalia's absence might have been decisive here.
2. What a mess in North Carolina. The state has passed a new redistricting law which not only changes all of the congressional districts; it also changes the timing of elections and eliminates a runoff primary. It is certainly a partisan gerrymander. What happens if the new plan is challenged as a partisan gerrymander? In Vieth the Court divided 4-1-4. Now with Scalia is is presumably (we're not sure because of some new Justices) 4 Justices that believe such claims raise constitutional problems, 1 (Kennedy) who is not sure, and 3 (from 4, now minus Scalia) who believe such claims are non-justiciable. Is there a new majority to police partisan gerrymandering?
3. And it is quite possible that there could be a Voting Rights Act violation now. The problem with the last plan was that North Carolina took race too much into account. But now perhaps NC did not take race enough into account to assure that the districts comply with Section 2 of the Act, which requires the creation of majority opportunity districts under certain circumstances.
4. It is quite possible that the 3-judge court then, seeing these potential problems, rejects the maps submitted by the state and orders its own maps. That would take some time, but with the primary now potentially put off until June there is time.
5. Now of course virtually none of this would have happened if the Supreme Court had not ruled in Shelby County to strike down the trigger for the preclearance provisions of the VRA. North Carolina would have had to submit any new maps to DOJ, which then could have withheld preclearance if they made protected minority voters worse off.
6. There's a lot of confusion on the ground, and I expect that the three-judge court will quickly hold a hearing and figure out what the heck comes next. Wow!
[This post has been updated.]
[Share]<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS83hJ5xZYQsICzBNBATsSztxdd5BOX1J6X2qqbbzXNJ6X2qqbbBTPqdS4QQmjhOUUrBgDGQER1lJDnw09KSPHM04SyPvNRD7-LObxEVsKqekn-LsKCCyVPbbNEVd7b0W_khjmKCHtVzBgY-F6lK1FJMSyOrKrKr9PCJhbcatG24WX0JO-k9X7McryusjDdouO83QNsuCb-vZFOH0_j10-F7w08Zcn7IyWMZAeuKyMqemww29OCvVMP7ZaOwh7Iy0ZeUM91w4xco7FygZeU2OCjGTcuDs6lDW0ZeUtaBfxcuC93QXxTMBZ1WtNyuBxWtVg7FT1wAfjK2_gBispmDa14uDsiSDYfjK0FfpzQXxRvEfjK6P7FT6_S0ZAnq208g-BEOmDaI3zp-C2_D_qsGMbAaJMJZ0kxWSNCHY9BPVkDjCXiXQ6Prb0WVEVdwLQzh0qmNEaCBQQg30A60i4NwQglyxYjh1a1Ew1wAq8brjPrapL2TlBFzm>
Posted in redistricting<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6jqb3XVEVpd7bzb9KVJ6X2qqbbBS3qdS4QQmn7TzqdS4QQmnbLCQrI9FEICzBNMTaxflFhG2HreL00jtJDnw09J5C_zHefZvAn3hOVsQsELZuVtdd5PCmnzhOqem1R-EyCJtdmXP7axVZicHs3joUSyOrKrKr01-vZFOH0_j10-F7w0e4HrcVMSvFwLV_SDaI2V2Hsbvg58uJIpG_2ps-l9QVKQKZ1ISOMeKqejobZ8Qg6BIq2FFtd40M91w4xcod45oEv4Qgiwq80o96y2SQYSOCrucxj>, Supreme Court<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr43qb3XVEVpd7bzb9KVJ6X2qqbbBS3qdS4QQmn7TzqdS4QQmnbLCQrI9FEICzBNMTaxflFhG2HreL00jtJDnw09J5C_zHefZvAn3hOVsQsELZuVtdd5PCmnzhOqem1R-EyCJtdmXP7axVZicHs3jrNJ5ATsTsS03Y_XjBm1-C21Zif00s9mSpOpEVdDWob-vZFOH0KgGT2TQ1i7Hr6qLMCnfBiterJbLgrdII3HCzAS2_id41Fr6wGqnjh0c2go18j63h1ma7Nd44E6y062hEwJJfdIFCU0yEU9Dp>
--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr40Ug6x8SyM--qemjhOUOOrKrhKMCCyOVtwSztxdd5BNZUSztxdd5BOXVJ6X2qqb9EVssdOEjRqkqwGSPHM04TrpRU02rhpLUWPz_nV5MQsKnd7ab_nKnjjhsVBBUQsCzBwtvG8FHnjlKYNOEuvkzaT0QSqejqb9KVKVI04vFzCXiXQ6YtSPpYOSeJDDBVOl_2uQ-66PZc5_f-QVlwn8lrxrW0F3RJzdnUjbDOFeDdSBTEdCSm1RPhOr1vF6y0QJzgldbFEw618c0A9z1EwH53UCy2k3h0318QgmSDCSkPocaXRxlNpqXQ>
http://electionlawblog.org<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndzgA96Qm7TPhOOqen6mjtPqdS4QQmnbI6QrI9FEIKfL6QrI9FEIKnvdETojjhpd7bzxKl2uHizk5mStu00CXreL00jqbd_7msvW_8K6zBOVEVhvWZOWqqbDcIL6zAQsI3HZh5dqWqJTCel3PWApmU6CQrCQmjtPtPo0fP_Jelo7Wo87R8Y01dDWob-vZFOH0KgGT2TQ1i7Hr6qLMCnfBiterJbLgrdII3HCzAS2_id41Fr6wGqnjh0c2go18j63h1ma7Nd44E6y062hEwJJfdIFCPOD2IWCE>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCNASyM--qemjhOUOOrKrhKMCCyOVtwSztxdd5BNZUSztxdd5BOXVJ6X2qqb9EVssdOEjRqkqwGSPHM04TrpRU02rhpLUWPz_nV5MQsKnd7ab_nKnjjhsVBBUQsCzBwtvG8FHnjlKYNOEuvkzaT0QSyyrhpdTdTdw0QfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwTwCHIcfBisEeRM_j1vP_Jelo6PZc5_f-QVlwn8lrxrW0F3RJzdnUjbDOFeDdSBTEdCSm1RPhOr1vF6y0QJzgldbFEw618c0A9z1EwH53UCy2k3h0318QgmSDCSkPsGYYjeEty3sZ>
--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS71Mscz9J5xZYQsICzBNBATsSztxdd5BOX1J6X2qqbbzXNJ6X2qqbbBTPqdS4QQmjhOUUrBgDGQER1lJDnw09KSPHM04SyPvNRD7-LObxEVsKqekn-LsKCCyVPbbNEVd7b0W_khjmKCHtVzBgY-F6lK1FJ5cSyOrKrKr017WoVKQKZ1L7tISvcJzHpVVusBvMDJfxxI_j1vP_Jelo5O5mUm-wagZroPl-4OVYGjFPtFtW3pJBwtsQsCMnWhEwdboQ5jiWq81wi3092oMq8aNg-9EwB0Qg0Mid45JFVJBcTpy2>
http://electionlawblog.org<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPosrhovvd7b9EVsppdTdETojjhpsKMrhKMCCyOU-YrhKMCCyOVtYSztxdd5AQsKe6Vk9WJadglrpRU02rJIWY01dEITYtpN_HYyUqenbCzB5_HTbFFEKsOOYqejhOMeLR4kRHFGTuoVkffGhBrwqrhpdEICXCXCM0vD_qsGMfQMgfGhU02rfQMnY_XjBm1sxlK5LE2AfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwSrpo7nd79I5-Aq83iSd1kQKCy0o4wM2gCc6y2Ikfyq89gd40c4zh1rqurpjd_BC5RNhGAdLa>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160220/48d07348/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160220/48d07348/attachment.png>
View list directory