Prof. Lowenstein stated that "No one doubts that renewal will occur."  I've
spoken to several members of Senate staff this afternoon who have serious
doubts that renewal of all provisions will occur, and are very concerned.
Lowenstein's statement in this regard is simply false, and many are
concerned, in particular, that the bill is likely not to be renewed this
year before the elections, and if the GOP are able to retain majorities in
both houses this year, then the bills may very well be in jeopardy.  It has
taken a lot of very good work on behalf of a great many people to get the
bill to the point it's at today.  Pressure on Republicans to support renewal
will never (before expiration in August, 2007) be greater than it is now.
To take for granted the renewal of the VRA is to virtually guarantee that
such renewal of its expiring provisions are in jeopardy.

David J. Becker
Election Consultant and Voting Rights Attorney
(202) 550-3470
(202) 521-4040 fax
david.j.becker@electionconsulting.com
www.electionconsulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Lowenstein,
Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:32 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: FW: FW: FW: "House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act"

         This is the second time today I have been struck by the impatient
tenor of the comments here.  This morning we were referenced to Bob Bauer's
blog-ed urging the Supreme Court, whatever else it does, to decide the
Vermont case quickly.  It is bad enough we've had to wait until now, they
can't possibly give us such agony as to have to wait until next week
or--perish the thought--until the following week.  Others who disagreed with
him on substantive points agreed with his sense of urgency.  The delay may
betoken a fractured decision, a la Vieth and a la the wetlands decision,
which would probably be a bad thing.  But the delay itself has no effect
whatever on the public weal.
 
         The Republicans' delaying VRA renewal seems to me to be an example
of aiming a bullet at their own foot, so far as the fall elections are
concerned, and that was the point of the short message I posted earlier.
But the Act does not expire until 2007.  No one doubts that renewal will
occur.  The public will not suffer if renewal occurs next year rather than
this year, though perhaps some Republican candidates will.
 
         It is no mystery why the press, with its 24-hour news cycle, acts
as if any delay in deciding anything is a public horror.  Why can't we
display a little more patience in this circle?
 
 
          Best,
 
          Daniel Lowenstein
          UCLA Law School
          405 Hilgard
          Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
          310-825-5148

________________________________

From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of JMWice@aol.com
Sent: Wed 6/21/2006 4:38 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: FW: FW: "House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act"


What's most surprising about delaying the VRA House debate is that so many
House leaders misread their members. Speaker Hastert, Chairman
Sensenbrenner, and other GOP leaders joined with Democratic Leader Pelosi,
Democratic Whip Hoyer and members of the Black Caucus when they indroduced
the legislation at a bipartisan press conference. If the VRA is so important
to the leadership, and they are serious about their commitment to minorty
voters and communities, they should be able to pursuade their colleagues to
step to the plate. On an issue as important to them as the VRA, perhaps they
could have found a way around their 50% majority support requirement.

Jeff Wice