The NYT Editorial Page on Judge Alito and One Person, One Vote

In Ignore the Man Behind the Memo, the New York Times editorial page writes: "[Judge Alito] noted his 'disagreement with Warren Court decisions' in many important areas, including reapportionment. The reapportionment cases established the one-person-one-vote doctrine, which requires that Congressional and legislative districts include roughly equal numbers of people. They played a key role in making American democracy truly representative, and are almost uniformly respected by lawyers and scholars."

I think this is somewhat of an overstatement. While I believe there is near consensus that Baker v. Carr was correctly decided, there has been a great deal of criticism of the one person, one vote rule in recent years from both the left and right. I have already written about Judge McConnell's criticisms. But there have also been thoughtul pieces by Sandy Levinson, Grant Hayden, Richard Briffault, myself and others who can't be characterized as conservatives, questioning at least in part the implementation of the Supreme Court's one person, one vote rule.

"Voter Disenfranchisement by Attrition; With friends like FEMA, who needs Jim Crow?"

In These Times offers this very important report, which begins: "When Hurricane Katrina came ashore in New Orleans, it destroyed half the city’s voting precincts and scattered 300,000 of the city’s residents, most of them black, across the country. With citywide elections still scheduled in February and March for 20 key public offices—including mayor, criminal sheriff, civil sheriff and all city council members—restoring the city’s democratic capability might seem an urgent task to some, but not to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)."

Court Invalidates Ballot Measure Where Chinese Translation of Measure was Faulty

See here.

"Recounting Ohio: Was Ohio stolen? You might not like the answer"

Mother Jones has published this very interesting book review by Mark Hertsgaard. Thanks to Matt Kohn for the pointer.

Links to More WRtL Amicus Briefs

See here. One of the briefs, on behalf of Senator McConnell, was authored by Ted Olson.

More Commentaries on Lessons from the California and Ohio Election Reform Defeats

See Ned Foley's commentary and Bob Bauer's commentary, which offers a different view of the BC citizens' assembly promoted by Heather Gerken.

Conservative Groups' Amicus Brief in WRtL

Allison Hayward has posted it here. Allison reports that the brief was filed on behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics, the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, Reason, the Goldwater Institute, and the Claremont Institute. Who is CCP? "The Center for Competitive Politics is a non-profit organization founded in August 2005 by [former FEC Commissioner and current Capital law professor Brad] Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting, a campaign finance attorney and former General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. CCP’s mission, through legal briefs, studies, historical and constitutional analyses, and media communication, is to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process. With the exception of participating in the two pending Supreme Court cases relevant to its mission, CCP will open its doors in early 2006."

Some Evidence One Person, One Vote Will Get Some Play in Judge Alito Hearings

See this fact sheet from the Alliance for Justice. A snippet: "Judge Alito should say whether he continues to believe that the Constitution provides no right to abortion, contains no 'one person-one vote' principle, permits religious prayer in school and forbids affirmative action."

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