Spencer Overton refers to " today's environment of career politicians,
partisan and incumbent focused gerrymandering, and the desire to win at
any cost" as showing the need for review of changes in voting rules.  I
think the need runs more deeply.  My research for a book on the origins
of the Voting Rights Act suggests that even "moderate" whites tended to
act from a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement that they thought
justified manipulation of voting rules to minimize the vote of those
deemed less entitled, the African-Americans.  For example, one white
registrar with close links to the black community worried that if blacks
in Livingston, Ala. got the vote the city would have to build a second
water tower.  See my article on the Sumter Co., Ala. case, 54 Ala.
L.Rev. 877, 908.  

>>> "Spencer Overton" <soverton@law.gwu.edu> 6/8/2005 12:16:18 PM >>>

>From the postings on this list, it seems as though some might assert
that Section 5 is no longer needed because of a drop in Justice
Department objections to state and local election practices in recent
years.  Even with Bossier II's weakening of the Voting Rights Act,
however, the law still plays an important role in preventing
discrimination in voting.  Each of the approximately 10 objections per
year may protect thousands of voters.  The number of objections may also
be deflated because localities and states often withdraw their submitted
changes  when it appears that the Justice Department suspects the change
harms minority voters (rather than risk objection).  

Perhaps Section 5's most important contribution, however, is the
deterrence of discriminatory behavior.  When state and local officials
in areas covered by Section 5 debate a voting change, they know federal
officials will eventually review any proposal.  As a result, they often
consider racial impact  and design proposed changes so that they do not
worsen the position of racial minorities.   As Justice Department
Attorney Michael Pitts has written:

"Having literally looked at hundreds of redistrictings submitted to the
Attorney General, I can attest to the fact that the documents provided
by local officials, whether it be meeting minutes or descriptions of
redistricting criteria, amply demonstrate that local officials and their
demographers are acutely cognizant of the standards for preclearance and
typically try to steer very clear of anything that would raise concerns
with the Attorney General."

Absent Section 5, politicians would adopt districting plans or other
election laws with less regard for their impact on voters of color.  For
example, as Morgan Kousser has written on this listserve, following
unprecedented mid-decade redistricting of 2003, Republicans increased
their share of the 32-member Texas congressional delegation from about
50% to 66%.  State Representative Phil King, head of the Texas House
Redistricting Committee in 2003, testified that but for Section 5
preclearance, he would have tried to split all African American and
Latino communities into different districts and create a plan that gave
Republicans 100% of Texas's congressional seats. 

In today's environment of career politicians, partisan and incumbent
focused gerrymandering, and the desire to win at any cost, the Section 5
preclearance process remains important.  


Professor Spencer Overton
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052 
(202)994-9794
soverton@law.gwu.edu 
http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/soverton/ 

THE DONOR CLASS (arguing that campaign reforms should encourage
candidates to raise the bulk of their funds from smaller contributors)
available at . . . 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=569021 



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>
Date:  Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:23:57 -0700

>
 

 
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the Webmail system at law.gwu.edu


 
                   

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org