My article on Congressional Power to Renew Section 5 Now Available

It does not appear to be on Westlaw or Lexis yet, but you can download a pdf of the final version of my article, "Congressional Power to Renew Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act After Tennessee v. Lane," 66 Ohio State Law Journal 177 (2005) at this link. A revised and updated version will appear in The Future of the Voting Rights Act (Russell Sage: Epstein, de la Garza, O'Halloran, and Pildes eds., forthcoming 2006).

"Don't tolerate election interference"

The Seattle Times offers this editorial, which begins: "A King County Superior Court ruling last week struck a blow for Washington state's values of transparent campaign financing." Thanks to C.E. Petit for the pointer.

"Peter Schrag: Prop. 77: Off again, on again, gone again, Finnegan"

See this Sacramento Bee column.

"Lockyer Overruled"

The Wall Street Journal offers this editorial (pass thru link), which begins: "California's Supreme Court decision Friday to restore a redistricting measure to the November special election ballot is bad news for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who was trying to have it removed on a technicality. But the ruling is very good news for anyone fed up with the state's rigged system for electing lawmakers." Thanks to Steven Sholk for the link.

"Suit challenges reformers' petitions"

The Toledo Blade offers this report, which begins: "An organization seeking to prevent a proposed constitutional amendment overhauling Ohio election law from reaching the ballot filed a second lawsuit yesterday, this time challenging petition circulators." Another snippet: "Also yesterday, the Ohio Ballot Board, controlled 3-2 by Republicans, crafted the language voters would see on the ballot, expanding what was proposed to be three questions into four. The board is chaired by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell."

Petition for Cert Filed in Florida Felon Disenfranchisement Case: WWRD (What Would Roberts Do)?

Lyle Denniston (of SCOTUSBLOG) offers this useful post on the status of Johnson v. Bush (upholding Florida's felon disenfranchisment law against constitutional and Voting Rights Act section 2 challenges) and similar cases in the Second and Ninth Circuits.

Assuming Judge Roberts is confirmed, this may be one of the first test of his views of the Voting Rights Act. Based on everything I have seen about Judge Roberts' views of section 2, I find it very difficult to believe he would interpret section 2 to cover felon disenfranchisement absent evidence of discriminatory purpose (though that issue is indeed presented in the Florida case). We know he opposed the broad effects test from section 2, and, as I noted here, he fought to have section 2 interpreted as narrowly as possible once it was passed. As I noted:

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."

The liberals on the Court could vote against cert. in this case, out of fear of creating a national precedent that would narrow the reach of section 2. A cert. denial at least keeps the Ninth Circuit's case alive for now.

ASPA Meeting

I'll be presenting my forthcoming Washington and Lee paper on election reform at the American Political Science Association annual meeting on September 1 in Washington, D.C. The rest of the panel looks very interesting. See here. Unfortunately, the panel meets at the same time as this one on the judicialization of electoral politics. I'll also be gone by Saturday, when this interesting campaign finance panel and this interesting redistricting panel convene. Redistricting junkies also would not want to miss this panel, except for the fact that it is scheduled for 8 am Sunday morning.

Roberts' Documents on Texas Redistricting

One of the John Roberts files released yesterday by the Reagan Library was labeled "Texas Redistricting." I have obtained a copy of the file and posted it here. The file contains correspondence related to how the Justice Department handled preclearance requests in 1982 and 1983 concerning Texas redisticting. I did not see anything there that sheds light on Judge Roberts' views on preclearance or on redistricting more generally, but you can look for yourself.

-- 
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