Senator Obama on Section 5 Renewal
Yesterday I participated in the kickoff event for the new AEI-Brookings
Election Reform Project. I think this promises to be a very
important program to bring together academics, advocates and
policymakers who are interested in a serious look at election reform.
To me, the highlight of the event was the give and take among
participants. (When the video link is available, I'll post it.) For
example, voting rights attorney David Becker questioned AU's Bob Pastor
about the use of the Carter-Baker report as cover for enacting certain
voter i.d. programs in various states. I pushed Vermont's Secretary of
State (and new president of NASS) Deborah Markowitz on NASS's
unfortunate resolution last year calling on the US Election Assistance
Commission to be disbanded. But the most interesting exchange of all
came in Sen. Obama's response to Bruce Cain's questions about section 5
renewal and whether Congress should reverse the Bossier Parish
cases. Here is an excerpt from the uncorrected
transcript of the Senator's remarks (my emphasis):
QUESTION: Bruce Cain, director of the UC Washington Center.
Let's go back to the Voting Rights renewal question and let's stay in
the narrow parameters of -- every time it's been renewed, provisions
have been changed. Bailout provisions usually get changed. And there's
a lot of unhappiness in the civil rights community about the Bossier II
decision and the shift back to the strict retrogressive standard.
Where do you see the debate in terms of the modifications of the Voting
Rights Act? It doesn't seem as though renewing the Voting Rights Act
itself is so much an issue as the terms on which it's going to be
renewed. Where do you see the civil rights community looking for
changes and what do you think are the best kinds of changes to make?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that's a big question. You've got to separate out
what would be desirable from what is even remotely possible. Let me
answer this way. I do think America has changed in some respects. So,
you know, the Voting Rights Act has become this tangle of provisions,
some of which made perfect sense back in 1965, some of which probably
are less relevant. And then there's the absence of certain provisions
that are critically relevant now that have never really been discussed.
I think that the single most important aspect of Voting Rights Act
renewal is not just raw ballot access--although I think that's
absolutely critical--but also making sure that we have a Justice
Department that is empowered anywhere in the country--not just in areas
that historically had repressed voters, but anywhere in the country
that, if there is a minority group that is vulnerable, that the Justice
Department is empowered to go in and look and investigate and see
whether or not the voting practices and procedures that have been set
up are further suppressing these voters.
And I think that part of the problem that we have right now is
that the machinery that we've got identifies certain pockets of the
country in which they've got to check off with a three-judge panel or
the Justice Department, but it's not supple enough or quick enough to
target situations, such as in Ohio, where I do think that there were
some egregious practices taking place. The Justice Department did not
feel it had a mandate or was required to enforce some of these
provisions.
I guess another way of saying it is, the biggest problem I see with the
Voting Rights Act is a lack of intentional effort on the part of the
Justice Department to enforce those provisions that are there.
Now, we've got some complicated questions about majority/minority
districts and Section 2(b) and, you know, whether or not influence
districts should be included changes and redistricting. I think the
whole redistricting question is a huge complicated theoretical problem
and I'm hoping that the Supreme Court provides some guidance, having
taken this case. But I actually think that the biggest problem with the
Voting Rights Act right now is that the Voting Rights Division at the
Justice Department feels disempowered and is-- I hear reports
consistently from those who are career lawyers for the Voting Rights
Division that nobody upstairs really cares or is encouraging them to
get involved. And I don't know that a reauthorization or a law changes
that. That has to do with whether or not this is the priority of an
administration or not.
I know that wasn't as pin-pointed as I would have liked, but that's
probably the best I can do at the moment.
These are very interesting remarks. Is it possible that a change in the
targeting provisions for Section 5 will be considered by Senate
Democrats? What does this say about whether Congress can make the
record that the current targeting provisions are constitutional in
targeting the parts of the country with the greatest problems in
securing minority voting rights?
New York Judicial Election Articles
The NY Times offers State's
Chief Judge Calls for Changes in Way Judges Are Elected. See also this
oped by Joshua Spivak in the Brooklyn Eagle, "A Stark View
of NY's Judicial Selection Process."
"Competition and Redistricting in California: Lessons
for Reform"
UC Berkeley's Institute for Governmental Studies has published this
research study. From the press release:
Redistricting reform could increase the competitiveness of some
California Congressional and legislative districts, according to a new
study released today by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the
University of California, Berkeley.
After drawing dozens of potential redistricting plans, researchers
concluded that attempting to create more competitive seats while also
balancing other criteria would probably produce 12 to 14 competitive
Congressional districts and 12 to 17 competitive Assembly seats.
Currently the state has no Congressional districts and five Assembly
districts that fall within the study's definition of a competitive
range. Increased competitiveness has been one of the outcomes sought by
those aiming to take the process of redrawing legislative districts out
of the hands of the Legislature.
The study cautions, however, that while such districts would be
closely divided along partisan lines, they would not necessarily
produce frequent partisan turnover. Factors such as incumbency,
monetary advantages, national political trends, and candidate quality
make it unlikely that closely divided districts would ensure a sharp
increase in the frequency with which seats change hands, researchers
found.
The ability of any redistricting plan to create a high rate of
partisan turnover is "greatly limited," the researchers wrote.
FEC Commissioners Toner and Lenhard Testify Before
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
The
testimony provides a great introduction to the question how FECA
applies to Indian tribes. See also this Roll
Call report on the hearing.
Oral arguments on issues related to the "top two"
primary
On Monday, a Ninth Circuit panel held oral argument in a case
challenging the constitutionality of Washington state's top two
primary. According to this
AP report, the judges were skeptical that a top two primary that
did not give parties the option of rejecting a candidate's use of the
party's name would violate the associational rights of political
parties. California's most recent open primary initiative did give
parties the right to reject the use of their labels on the ballot.
[Disclosure: I was on the legal team drafting and defending that
measure]. The measure went down to defeat, but some of the litigation
arising out of the measure continues. On
March 8, the California Supreme Court will decide whether a lower
court erred in allowing a competing measure regulating political
parties to appear on the ballot. That measure combined both regulation
of primaries and an unrelated measure about the sale of surplus state
property. The lower court held that the combining of the two measures
violated the separate vote requirement of California's constitution
(something similar to, but not necessarily identical to, a single
subject requirement). But the lower court's remedy split the measure
and placed both parts on the ballot separately, thereby placing on the
ballots two measures neither one of which necessarily would have gained
majority support in the legislature.
AU Summer Institute on Democracy and Elections
The following announcement arrived via e-mail:
American University announces its Summer Institute on Democracy and
Elections, which will take place on June 5-15, 2006. This Summer
Institute provides an intensive course of executive education on
elections--how to conduct them, how to ensure they are free and fair,
and what to do if they are not. Taught by eminent election experts, the
course will address the full range of challenges in elections, from the
design of election systems to the regulation of campaign finances,
evaluation of voting technologies, and overall assessment of the
electoral process. The Summer Institute is designed to educate the full
range of participants in and observers of the election process:
election officials, judges, government officials, legislators, civil
society leaders, political party officials, election observers, and
journalists. Further details are available at:
"Why did redistricting reform fail in California and
Ohio in 2005? New survey research provides great data and a lot of
insight"
See this
report on Election Updates.
"69 Million Voters will use Optical Scan Ballots in
2006"
Election Data Services has issued this
report.