Hasen: Proactive Bailout Amendment to Be Offered in
House Rules Committee
I have been advocating
a proactive bailout amendment for VRA renewal that I think can increase
the chances that a renewed VRA passes constitutional muster without
weakening the important protections of section 5. Rep. Lynn
Westmoreland will be offering this
amendment
on proactive bailout today to the House Rules Committee. That committee
will determine if the amendment gets offered on the floor of the House
during the vote on VRA renewal on Thursday. His office also has issued this
explanation of the proposed amendment.
Aside from the general statement in Laughlin
McDonald's Findlaw piece
opposing a "preemptive weakening" of the VRA renewal amendment, I have
not seen anything written from anyone on the merits as to why proactive
bailout is a bad idea. I think I prefer the language I've crafted to
the Westmoreland amendment, but I'm asking the more general question.
What are the arguments against proactive bailout, provided that the
standards for which jurisdictions may bail out don't change? Just to
answer what I consider to be an obvious objection: what prevents a
political DOJ from overreaching and consenting to bailout in too many
jurisdictions? The answer is that if DOJ does so, at least under my
proposal, intervenors can object and the three-judge panel considering
the bailout request must conduct a hearing on whether bailout is
warranted.
--
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