"Bush, DeLay And Texas"

Lou Dubose has posted this analysis of the Texas redistricting controversy at Tompaine.com.

"Minority Voting Studies of Jurisdictions Covered by Section Five of the Voting Rights Act"

AEI has posted section 5-related studies of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana. According to the site: "The authors of these studies, Prof. Keith Gaddie of the Univ. of Oklahoma and Prof. Charles Bullock of the Univ. of Georgia, have produced extensive voting behavior scholarship in addition to acting as expert witnesses in dozens of voting rights cases throughout the country. These studies analyze a variety of election criteria including: black and Hispanic voter registration rates; black and Hispanic election turnout rates; success and failure of black and Hispanic candidates; white cross-over support for minority candidates; and racial polarization levels using three different methodologies. Although the trends in minority election participation vary from state to state, the data suggest that the crisis of black voter disenfranchisement in the Deep South and elsewhere that existed in 1965 is over and Congress should allow this provision of the act to expire."

"Georgia voter ID law challenge sent back to lower court"

Jurist offers this post, with links to the relevant documents.

"Lawsuit seeks change in N.O. election plans"

The New Orleans Times-Picayune offers this report, which begins: "A group of Lower 9th Ward leaders and the community group ACORN filed a federal lawsuit Thursday seeking major changes in Louisiana's plans to hold elections this spring for New Orleans mayor, City Council and other offices."

"Elections Official Accused of Bias"

See the third item in this Washington Post roundup of Maryland political news. It begins: "Senate Republicans yesterday accused an official at the nonpartisan State Board of Elections of violating his pledge of impartiality by helping Democrats pass legislation to allow early voting in November."

Electronic Vote Count Suit Fails

In a unanimous unpublished opinion, a California appellate court has rejected a request by a losing candidate for Riverside County supervisor for access to electronic voting records. According to this news story, the candidate "had complained that the county's electronic machines lacked the ability to perform a proper audit and asked for other materials to help compare the vote counts." The story also reports that the appellate "court affirmed a trial court's ruling in the case, saying [the candidate] could not prove that getting access to the records would have changed the outcome of the election. Additionally, the court said it's too late to have another recount."

"TOUGH CALL WAITING; ABA Commission in Quandary as It Considers Final Position on Judges' Campaign Activities"

The ABA E-Journal offers this report. Thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointer.

"Voting Rights Under Siege"

The New York Times offers this editorial on voting rights in Pennsylvania.

"Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting"

While at Brookings yesterday, I picked up a copy of Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting, edited by Tom Mann and Bruce Cain. It looks to be an interesting read. Here is the description:

The legitimacy of the American electoral system depends on sustaining reasonable levels of fairness, accountability, responsiveness, and common sense. Recent Congressional elections fly in the face of those requirements, however, with a startling lack of competition, growing ideological polarization, and a fierce struggle between the parties to manipulate the electoral rules of the game. Party Lines addresses these problems head on in an authoritative and timely analysis of redistricting in the United States.

The practice of state legislatures redrawing district lines after the decennial census has long been a controversial aspect of our governing system. Recent developments have added new urgency to earlier debates. The sorry spectacle of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in Texas renewed public attention to the potential problems of redistricting, reinforcing the view that it is unfairly dominated by self-serving elected officials and parties. The perfunctory character of Congressional elections is another growing problem: in 2002, only four House incumbents were defeated in the general election, the lowest in American history. Despite a hotly contested presidential contest in 2004, that number increased by only three.

In Party Lines, eminent political analysts explain the legal and political history of redistricting since the one person-one vote revolution in the 1960s and place it in the larger context of American politics. The authors document the impact of redistricting on competition, polarization, and partisan fairness, and they assess the role technology played in the redistricting process. The final chapter analyzes options for reform, including most importantly the use of independent redistricting commissions as an alternative to the normal state legislative process. Redistricting reform is no panacea but it is a start toward ensuring that American voters still have the largest say in who will represent them.

Contributors include Micah Altman (Harvard Universtity), Bruce Cain and Karin MacDonald (University of California—Berkeley), Cherie Maestas (Florida State University), L. Sandy Maisel (Colby College), Thomas Mann (Brookings Institution), Michael McDonald (George Mason University), Nathaniel Persily (University of Pennsylvania ), and Walter Stone (University of California—Davis).

Symposium on Executive Power

The following announcement has arrived via e-mail:

>From March 24-26, The Yale Law Journal will be hosting a symposium on executive power titled The Most Dangerous Branch? Mayors, Governors, Presidents, and The Rule of Law. It will cover a wide range of topics, from
the scope of the President's war-conducting powers to mechanisms for limiting the reach of state attorneys general to mayoral attempts to act as independent constitutional interpreters. Through a comparison of executives
at multiple levels of government, the symposium will attempt to better understand the nature of the executive role.

Participants will include: Professor John Yoo, the influential (and controversial) former Bush Administration attorney; Professor Neal Katyal, who will be arguing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, this term's most anticipated Supreme
Court case; Dean Elena Kagan of the Harvard Law School; and Dean Harold Koh of the Yale Law School.

The discussions should be lively and timely, given the increasing public interest in the limits of executive power and the wisdom of the unitary executive.

We hope that you will help us spread the word by announcing the symposium on your website. If you would like to register for the conference or to obtain further information, please do not hesitate to email us at symposium@yalelawjournal.org. You can also obtain more information on the conference at www.yalelawjournal.org/symposium.

"Voting Early--and Often; Maryland swims against the election-reform current"

John Fund offers this OpinionJournal column.

-- 
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