"Roberts' Iffy Support for Voting Rights"

The Los Angeles Times has published my oped on Judge Roberts' views of voting rights, based upon my examination of his papers while serving as special counsel to Reagan administration Attorney General William French Smith. These papers relate to the Administration's opposition to amending Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to make it easier for minorities to prove vote diluton. You can find the original source documents I relied upon in writing the oped here. Here is a snippet from the oped:

In these documents, Roberts wrote that the new Section 2 would "establish a quota system" and "provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes." He added that it "would be difficult to conceive of a more drastic alteration of local government affairs."

Imposing the new Section 2 nationwide, he concluded, would be "not only constitutionally suspect, but also contrary to the most fundamental [tenets] of the legislative process on which the laws of this country are based."

One could perhaps argue that Roberts' writings did not reflect his personal views and were simply the arguments of a zealous advocate for a client. But the papers I have seen suggest otherwise.

During the Senate debates, for instance, Roberts wrote that the attorney general had to "get something out somewhere soon" [original emphasis] explaining the administration's position because the "frequent writings in this area by our adversaries have gone unanswered for too long." He called on the administration to take an "aggressive stance" against the changes to Section 2. When it was over and Section 2 had been amended, Roberts wrote that "we were burned."

None of these statements absolutely proves that Roberts is hostile to expansive voting rights legislation, but as he wrote in his talking points for the attorney general, circumstantial evidence (rather than a "smoking gun") should be enough to prove intent.

The oped also talks about what a Justice Roberts might mean for the Supreme Court's consideration of the constitutionality of a renewed section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should that issue reach the Supreme Court in the future.

One of the documents I did not have space to discuss in the oped was one released yesterday by the National Archives. In this memorandum to Ken Starr (see page 2 of the pdf), Roberts recommended that the DOJ intervene in a voting rights case in Chicago, writing: "it is critical that the Department participate in the developing process of giving meaning to the vague terms of the new section 2, and help courts avoid the outcomes we argued against and which the proponents of an amended section 2 assured us were never intended."

"Mike a party animal"

The NY Daily News offers this report, which begins: "Mayor Bloomberg has called himself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent - and now he wants to be a Liberal, too. Bloomberg, who switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 2001 to run for mayor, is hoping to revive the state's Liberal Party so that he can run on its currently defunct ballot line in November. That would allow Bloomberg to run as a Republican-Liberal - a fusion that the city's overwhelmingly Democratic majority might find a little easier to support in voting booths this November." Thanks to Political Wire for the pointer.

"Tough times for campaign fund-raisers; New donation limits and special election lighten war chests"

The SF Chronicle offers this report.

Anonymous Campaign Ads in Eureka, CA

See this article in the Times-Standard.

"America Coming Together Comes Apart"

Byron York offers this column at National Review Online.

Judge Roberts' Papers in Connection with the 1982 Voting Rights Act Renewal

The Bush Administration has allowed the National Archives to release papers from Judge Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration in connection with Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. I have been examining the papers relating to the 1982 Voting Rights Act renewal. I have posted a set of papers that I obtained from the Alliance for Justice here. There is also a reference to the 1982 amendments in this 1983 document on fair housing posted by the Washington Post. In addition, the Archives just released 59 additional documents, three of which relate to the 1982 renewal. You can find these documents here, here, and here. I rely upon a number of these documents in my Los Angeles Times oped, which should be linked on this page some time Wednesday morning.

"Gonzales: US to work on renewing Voting Rights Act"

Reuters offers this report. A snippet: "[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales would not give any details on whether the administration would support all expiring parts of the legislation or if it planned to suggest any changes."

"Opponents of voter IDs thrive on fear"

Jim Wooten offers this commentary in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"McCain Pushes for FEC Critic"

The Hill offers this report.

-- 
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