"On Redistricting, Voters Have Spoken Up for the
Status Quo"
Stuart Rothenberg offers this
Roll Call column (paid subscription required).
"Supreme Court Asked to Hear Voting Rights Case"
Legal Times offers this preview
of Johnson v. Bush, currently before the Supreme Court on a
petition for certiorari. The case raises constitutional and section 2
of the Voting Rights Act claims against Florida's disenfranchisement
laws. My earlier coverage of the case is here and I
discuss the case in my forthcoming Howard Law Journal article
on the constitutionality of Congress barring state felon
disenfranchisement laws.
"Why Vote on Tuesdays?"
David Broder writes this
Washington Post column.
Linda Chavez Against Section 5 Reauthorization
Linda Chavez has written this
oped, which begins:
The Voting Rights Act has long been regarded as one of the nation's
most successful civil rights laws, ending decades of discrimination
that disenfranchised millions of black voters in the Deep South. But
Congress is now considering whether to extend certain provisions of the
act, which would otherwise lapse in 2007. One provision, usually
referred to as Section 5 of the act, requires specific jurisdictions to
submit to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance any proposed
changes in voting procedures, such as moving polling places or
redrawing district boundaries. Another provision, known as Section 203
or the Bilingual Election Requirements, forces hundreds of
jurisdictions across the country to print ballots in languages other
than English -- an expensive and divisive practice. Neither of these
sections of the act should be reauthorized, but Congress may find it
difficult to do the right thing.
In related news, AP offers
this report on the
position of the ACLU and the NAACP on Congress using reauthorization to
reverse
Georgia v. Ashcroft.
"GOP reform plan needed, expert says"
The Toledo Blade offers this
report.
P
Ewald on Felon Disenfranchisement Practices
Be sure not to miss A Crazy
Quilt of Tiny Pieces: State and Local Administation of American
Criminal Disenfranchisement Law by Alec Ewald for the Sentencing
Project. This is a very important piece of work and should be read
especially by those who support fairly applied felon disenfranchisement
laws.
Sen. Obama on Election Fraud
The following press release arrived via email:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Tuesday introduced
legislation to protect Americans from using tactics that intimidate
voters and prevent them from exercising their rights on Election Day.
Obama’s legislation, the Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005, would make it illegal for anyone
to knowingly attempt to prevent others from exercising his or her right
to vote by providing deceptive information and would require the
Attorney General to fully investigate these allegations. The
legislation would also require the Attorney General, in conjunction
with the Election Assistance Commission, to provide accurate election
information when allegations of deceptive practices are confirmed....
The entire release is
here.
The bill itself is
here.
More Worries About the "New Federalism" and Section 5
See this
post by Lyle Denniston on arguments in the two Georgia ADA cases
argued today in the Supreme Court. For background on why I worry about
these cases in terms of the Voting Rights Act, see here. My
friend Sam Bagenstos argued this case, and I hope he'll post a report
on his Disability Law Blog.
Update: Kevin Russell of SCOTUSBlog offers a
different take on the oral argument.
"The Uncertain Congressional Power to Ban State Felon
Disenfranchisement Laws"
I have posted the following draft
article on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Abstract:
This article, prepared for a voting rights symposium to appear in the
Howard Law Journal, considers congressional power to ban state felon
disenfranchisement laws. Although courts in other countries have held
that the practice of denying the right to vote to felons (or ex-felons)
violates constitutional guarantees, the U.S. Supreme Court has held
that the practice usually does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Current controversy in lower federal courts swirls over whether section
2 of the Voting Rights Act may bar certain state felon
disenfranchisement laws. This article looks beyond that controversy to
the constitutional question: If Congress passed a clear law barring the
state practice of disenfranchising felons (or ex-felons), would the
Supreme Court uphold such a law as a permissible exercise of
Congressional power to enforce the 14th or 15th amendments? The most
promising, but still quite uncertain, basis for congressional power is
that a felon disenfranchisement ban enforces equal protection
guarantees against race discrimination under the 14th amendment and
enforces the right to vote free of race discrimination under the 15th
amendment. In particular, the federal government could argue that it is
intentional past (and potentially present) race discrimination in this
country that leads to cycles of poverty in minority communities, and
that such poverty makes it more likely that members of these
communities will be arrested. In addition, the government could argue
that state discrimination in the administration of the criminal justice
system makes it more likely that minorities will be convicted of
felonies and therefore disenfranchised. The article concludes that in
light of the Supreme Court's new federalism jurisprudence it is
uncertain whether the Supreme Court would uphold such a law on this
basis as a permissible exercise of congressional power, leaving state
legislatures as the prime locus for changes to felon disenfranchisement
laws.
Does the failure of redistricting reform doom the
chances of constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering?
So suggests Mickey
Kaus:
Anti-gerrymandering reform lost in both California and Ohio. You might
say it's time to take the fight to the courts--and there are valid
constitutional arguments to be made, along Baker v. Carr lines, against
partisan or pro-incumbent gerrymanders. But isn't it kind of difficult
to argue that the courts need to intervene to make democracy fair after
the voters, in a perfectly fair, non-gerrymandered state-wide election,
have rejected the idea? This doesn't seem like a case of minority
rights, where the majority's opinion shouldn't count. The vast majority
of California voters are denied the chance to cast an effective ballot
because they live in manipulated districts where the incumbent can't
lose. They don't seem to care! Who are judges to tell them they should?
In this sense, the pro-reform movement is arguably worse-off than
if the voters had never been asked. ...
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:50 AM |
Comments
(1)