| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 12/2/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 12/2/2005, 9:03 AM |
| To: election-law |
I'm off to DC to meet with some folks at the National Academies of
Sciences on voting reform issues. I'm having trouble with blogging from
my Treo, so regular blogging likely will resume some time Tuesday.
Today's Washington Post features Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal; Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled. The newspaper also posted the 73-page document here. This comes on the heels of this earlier Post report on a similar leak involving the preclearance decision in the Georgia voter i.d. case and this report on the exodus of career DOJ civil rights attorneys in the face of accusations that the department's decisions have become too politicized. Clearly, someone in DOJ who is leaking the documents to the newspaper believes political considerations are trumping sound analysis by competent career DOJ attorneys. These revelations should cause Congress, considering reauthorization of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to look closely at whether DOJ remains the appropriate body to make preclearance decisions.
I don't think these revelations are likely to affect the upcoming
decision in the Supreme Court whether to hear the second set of
appeals from the three-judge court in the Texas redistricting cases. On
remand, the three judge court did not address the Voting Rights Act
issues again and focused only on the partisan gerrymandering claims. Here I
wrote that the most likely Supreme Court outcome at this point is a
summary affirmance with one or more dissents.
The Detroit Free-Press offers this
report, which begins: "Faced with a Detroit election riddled with
missing votes, computer glitches and allegations of vote tampering, the
Wayne County Board of Canvassers agreed Thursday to recount the
contentious race for mayor."
A.P. offers this
report. No word in the report on whether the President supports any
changes to the preclearance criteria.
The New York Times editorializes
in its favor. You can find the text of the measure here.
This is a long and complex bill that I have not had a chance to
analyze. I have heard some complain that the limits on contributions to
candidates by lobbyists and their families could be challenged (lower
courts have split on the constitutionaliity of targeted campaign
finance regulation bans) and that the public financing provisions could
violate the rights of
minor parties. Robbin Stewart is concerned
about the constitutionality of some of the disclosure provisions. I
think it is fair to expect some litigation over the constitutionality
of this measure, but I don't have an opinion yet on how such litigation
is likely to come out.
See here.
See here.
This is a nice looking page and easy to follow for those interested in
election reform.
Following up on this post,
noting this
Illinois appellate opinion holding an initiative unenforceable due
to a faulty Chinese translation of the ballot materials, this
Illinois appellate court opinion reaches the opposite conclusion.
According to the latter court: "If every inconsistency or irregularity
in ballot translation were challengeable and deemed sufficient to void
an election, every election in which the Board attempted to aid those
individuals not versed in English by translating the ballot into
another language would be voided and the courts overwhelmed with
election cases. Clearly, this is not the intent, nor goal, in providing
bilingual translations. Moreover, only substantial, not perfect,
compliance is required. To allow any and every inconsistency or
irregularity in translation to void an election would run counter to
the well-settled principle." Thanks to Mathias Delort for keeping me up
to date on this issue.
-- 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