[EL] SCOTUS order in NC case

Sun Feb 21 08:23:39 PST 2016

On February 16, the North Carolina NAACP asked the US Supreme Court for permission to file an amicus.  Does anyone know what the NAACP wanted to say?  The Court denied the stay on February 19.  The new districts hadn't been drawn yet on the 16th, so I guess the NAACP just wanted to say "don't issue a stay", but maybe it wanted to say something else.  I presume the NAACP had already written its amicus and wonder if anyone has a copy.
 Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

      From: "ely at compass-demographics.com" <ely at compass-demographics.com>
 To: "Gaddie, Ronald K." <rkgaddie at ou.edu>; "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>; "rhasen at law.uci.edu" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu> 
 Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:53 AM
 Subject: Re: [EL] SCOTUS order in NC case

It's really not that difficult. You draw districts according to traditional criteria where race is one of many factors determining communities of interest. As district are developed or proposed you look for the potential of vote dilution. Where there is a concern you examine the historical data carefully, and if necessary you make adjustments that are tailored to the specific conditions. Decennial redistricting is a complex process and this type of analysis should be within capabilities of anyone taking on the task. Simplistic answers like "don't consider race at all" or "draw x number of districts with y% minority cvap" are what create problems. 

      From: "Gaddie, Ronald K." <rkgaddie at ou.edu>
 To: "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>; "rhasen at law.uci.edu" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu> 
 Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [EL] SCOTUS order in NC case

 "How in the world can any legislature be expected to know where that line is?"
This is because the Court likes these cases. They are political, technical, and fun. And, they like to keep control of them. We're stuck cycling around this saddle equilibrium for over two decades.

Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
President's Associates Presidential Professor
Chair, Department of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Headington College
Associate Director, Center for Intelligence & National Security
General Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma
p: 405.325.2061  |e: rkgaddie at ou.edu | t:@GaddieWindage
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:47 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] SCOTUS order in NC case

Rick point here is interesting and worthy of additional comment; 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. I have a hard time understanding and justifying how we have got to the point that there is some fine line between taking "race too much into account" and not "raking race enough into account."  This may indeed currently be the law but it demonstrates that the law is hopeless arbitrary and vague.  How in the world can any legislature be expected to know where that line is? Further, the inevitable chaos, partisan maneuvering, etc ,that Rick points to, leads to gross disruption of the election and the public's accurate perception that the outcomes of the election are simply the result of lawyers and judges manipulating the election boundaries. The heart of the problem, it seems to me, is that we have to take race into account at all now.  Isn't it time to finally realize Martin Luther King's dream.  Jim Bopp In a message dated 2/20/2016 2:19:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

Breaking: SCOTUS, Without Noted Dissent, Denies Stay in NC Redistricting Case. What Does It Mean?
Posted on February 19, 2016 7:08 pm by Rick Hasen(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 in the North Carolina redistricting case. What does this mean?   
   - 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, 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.
   - 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?
   - 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.
   - 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.
   - 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.
   - 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.]Posted in redistricting, Supreme Court-- 
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

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160221/13e36ddb/attachment.html>