Subject: Re: FW: "House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act"
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 6/21/2006, 2:06 PM
To: "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenstein@law.ucla.edu>
CC: Election-law Listserver <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>

There's a crucial difference in the two cases, however.  House Republicans believe, rightly or wrongly, that deferring consideration on the immigration bill will help their chances in November (because they can run against what they call "amnesty" in the Senate bill and supported by Democrats).  In this case, I doubt House Republicans think that they can run successfully in November on opposition to the VRA renewal.  If anything, I suspect the opposite is true--this will allow Democrats to point to Republicans as not supporting of civil rights. 

I have no inside information, but I would assume the leadership pulled the bill because they were concerned the measure would not pass.  But if that's the case, it means that a large number of House Republicans must have been opposed, because I would guess that virtually all House Democrats would vote to support HR 9 and reject the two proposed amendments.

Rick

Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
Message
    This is the same strategy the House Republicans implemented this week on immigration.  Apparently they have decided that "Do-Nothing Congress" is a good slogan to go to the voters with in November.

            Best,

            Daniel Lowenstein
            UCLA Law School
            405 Hilgard
            Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
            310-825-5148

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:25 AM
To: election-law
Subject: "House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act"

"House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act"

AP offers this report, which begins: "House GOP leaders on Wednesday postponed the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act under objections from Southern Republicans who complained during a private meeting that the legislation unfairly singles out their states for federal oversight." According to the article, it is now unclear whether the legislation will come up this year:

The dramatic shift came after a private caucus meeting earlier Wednesday in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants. "The speaker's had a standing rule that nothing would be voted on unless there's a majority of the majority,"' said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., who led the objections. "It was pretty clear at the meeting that the majority of the majority wasn't there." 
-- 
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
  

-- 
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