| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 6/22/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 6/22/2006, 7:37 AM |
| To: election-law |
See here.
Lyle reports: "Ten more rulings are expected, with the next
announcement of opinions due on Monday."
An audio report from the NPR affiliate in Monterey, CA is here.
See also this
link to coverage by Howard Bashman, who notes the audio from oral
argument will be available later on the Ninth Circuit's website.
From discussions with a number of people, both on and off the election law listserv, I would now suggest amending my earlier proactive bailout proposal in two ways:
1. The DOJ should be able to request that covered jurisdictions compile information and submit the information to assist with the task of figuring out which jurisdictions should be entitled to bailout.
2. Given the large number of jurisdictions, DOJ should have three
years to prepare its initial list of jurisdictions entitled to bail
out, prioritizing by beginning with those jurisdictions most likely to
bail out (and producing an interim list at the end of each of the three
years). After the three year period, DOJ would produce an annual
updated list.
Those members of the civil rights community who have been leading the push for VRA renewal made a decision some time ago (or at least it appears to an outside observer) to push for VRA renewal (1) as quickly as possible and (2) in substantially the same form as the current Act or, if anything, to roll back some Supreme Court precedents seen as limiting the power of the VRA to help minority voters.
The first calculation seemed geared in great part to the fact that the current chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, agreed to fully support the bill drafted by the civil rights community. It also appeared that the House Republican leadership was also willing to push the measure through quickly this year. (We can debate why the House Republicans wanted to do this: maybe out of principle; maybe out of political expediency (it would not look good to be opposing landmark civil rights legislation), maybe for political gain (some believe that section 5, and perhaps also the Georgia v. Aschroft fix, would help Republicans create packed majority-minority districts which can maximize the number of white Republican districts overall).) Next year, Sensenbrenner will be out as chair, and what happens after the midterm elections is anyone's guess. For this reason, it probably made sense for the push to have renewal done now, which is why some in the civil rights community were very upset when the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed intent on moving more slowly on renewal.
It is the second calculation that may turn out to have been an error. As I noted earlier today (see also this NY Times report, this Washington Post report, this report in The Hill, this Roll Call report and this Wall Street Journal editorial), the bill is now on hold for the indefinite future, prompted by a rebellion among some House Republicans (especially from covered jurisdictions) who believe the bill is unfair. The reaction of these House members should not have been that much of a surprise. The bill would impose preclearance for another 25 years. It did not acknowledge that the state of minority voting rights in 2006 is not the same as the state of such rights in 1982 or in 1965. (That's not to say that VRA renewal is not necessary. I believe it is very necessary, and I support a renewed section 5.) But the attitude of those pushing the bill has been to try to avoid presenting dissenting views and to act as though 2007 and 1982 are the same.
Of course, the attempt to move the trigger for preclearance to the 2004 elections (as has been proposed by some House Republicans) is an awful proposal. It is one that would doom the measure's constitutionality, absent any evidence that these turnout figures today would do a good job capturing states with a real potential for racial discrimination in voting. That amendment was offered to make a political point. But other amendments, such as the proactive bailout proposal, should be debated seriously. There should also be room for compromises on issues such as the number of years of renewal.
Rather than presenting a bill that was sure to cause the anger of Southern Republicans, a smarter strategy might have been to offer some compromises. This was the gamble that may have been in error.
On the other hand, this delay could have some short term benefit for Democrats. Headlines such as Republicans cancel renewal of Voting Rights Act, for now can help Democrats win votes in November. Maybe the delay will hurt the Republicans after all.
But the wise move now for VRA renewal supporters would be to look
for common ground and places for compromise, to avoid the possibility
of the issue being put over post-midterm elections, and after Rep.
Sensenbrenner has left his important committee role.
The Wall Street Journal offers this
report.
...on when pre-election review of initiative measures is
appropriate. See Independent
Energy Producers v. McPherson. Link via California
Election Law.
-- 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