1.    I certainly agree that "we are getting really no explicit statements from Judge Roberts about his personal views of the benefits of section 2."

 

2.    But I would think that anyone advising Justice Roberts would recommend that he not air his personal views about section 2 for the simple reason that it would be very difficult at that point to refuse to air his opinions about sections 3 through 100,000 of whatever code. Not that  I feel good about this, but this appears to be the way this game is played. If he offered any criticism of section 2, however nuanced, the nuances would be lost for purposes of the public debate.

 

3.    In the unlikely event that anyone on this list were nominated for the Supreme Court, would anyone offer his/her personal views on the the benefits of section 2? To do so seems to be fulfilling a death wish.

 

George Waters
2600 Kadema Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864-6900
bokarie@sbcglobal.net
916/483-6367
916/483-7033 (fax)

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick Hasen

To: election-law

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:57 PM

Subject: More on Judge Roberts' Testimony Related to the 1982 Voting Rights Act

More on Judge Roberts' Testimony Related to the 1982 Voting Rights Act

Here is the relevant language from a transcript (see here and continuing to the next page) of a discussion between Judge Roberts and Senator Feingold (there are clearly some things missing or garbled in this transcript, but you can get the gist):

ROBERTS: Senator, my personal view of the Voting Rights Act is not somebody was interested in. You have people who serve on your staff, and their job is to help you implement your views as a senator.

FEINGOLD: I'm not questioning what your view was then...

ROBERTS: I'm just saying...

FEINGOLD: ... I'm asking what you think now, having -- this is pretty settled area; I think you'd agreeing -- having seen all this, having been intimately involved in it, knowing it as well as you do, do you believe that the intent test was still the more appropriate standard by which to evaluate vote dilution claims?

ROBERTS: Senator, I haven't studied the Voting Rights Act to determine whether the intent test or the effects test would have different results in different cases under section two. I'm in no position to make a judgment on that.

FEINGOLD: It would be my sense that you would be a person who would, with your enormous abilities and background, to have some sense about that. Obviously, understand that requiring a voter to prove any additional factor makes it harder for the voter to win the case and that to prove the intent of an entire legislative body can be very difficult, especially when a voting system was put in place many years ago, requiring African Americans, Latino voters, many of whom have had limited financial resources, to find evidence of intent was adding an enormous hurdle for them to overcome.

In the Mobile v. Bolden case itself, which was pursued after the Supreme Court's decision in 1980 and before Congress amended the law in 1982, makes it very clear, I think clear to all of us over the years, how difficult that standard was.

African Americans from Mobile, Alabama, had been unable to elect any candidates to the position of city commissioner for every election cycle for something like seven decades. They challenged the method of electing city commissioners that allowed the same majority to choose all the commissioners all the time in at-large elections, and the evidence was very clear that as a practical mater, although African Americans could register and vote, they couldn't elect anyone.

But to get relief under the Supreme Court standard, which you appear to have supported, they had to go to enormous effort and financial expense to prove discriminatory intent, including hiring a historian who could piece together the motivations of city officials who had designed the electoral system almost 100 years earlier.

In this situation, the administration was not bound by a Supreme Court decision in deciding what position to take on the proposed Voting Rights Act amendment. So why at that point did you want to make section two cases so difficult to prove?

ROBERTS: Senator, you keep referring to what I supported and what I wanted to do. I was a 26-year-old staff lawyer. It was my first job as a lawyer after my clerkships.

I was not shaping administration policy. The administration policy was shaped by the attorney general, on whose staff I served. It was the policy of President Reagan. It was to extend the Voting Rights Act without change for the longest period in history at that point. And it was my job to promote the attorney general's view and the president's view on that issue. And that's what I was doing.

FEINGOLD: I recognize that. What I'm trying to figure out is, given the fact that you've followed this issue for such a long time, I would think you would have a view at this point about whether you were right about -- or the department, let's say, since you were working for them -- whether the department was right on seeking to keep the intent test or whether time has shown that the effects test is really the more appropriate test.

ROBERTS: Well, Senator, I haven't followed the issue of the particular litigation. I had involvement in some litigation when I was in the Solicitor General's Office in which we were effective in proving violations under the Voting Rights Act.

Many of those cases arose under issues under Section 5 -- pre- clearance issues -- and not under Section 2. I, as a judge, had a case -- a three-judge district court case -- again arising under the pre-clearance provisions. But I'm certainly not an expert in the area and haven't followed and have no way of evaluating the relative effectiveness of the law as amended or the law as it was prior to 1982.

FEINGOLD: Well, with all respect, and I realize I should move on to another topic, but it just seems how strongly you stated some of these memos -- and I understand you were doing your job -- I would think you'd have a view today whether or not those strong statements still make sense.

The point appears to be that Judge Roberts was given a chance to declare section 2 a success (see the sources cited in Lowenstein and Hasen, Election Law at page 208---noting, inter alia, the post 1982 75% success rate in challenges to at large voting districts), as most people believe it now is, and he declined to do so. At the same time, he sought to distance himself personally from the views in the memos. So we are getting really no explicit statements from Judge Roberts about his personal views of the benefits of section 2.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

    

-- 
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