| Subject: The Spirit of Compromise? |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 6/22/2006, 4:34 PM |
| To: election-law |
Yesterday I suggested that the civil rights community should be ready to compromise on some aspects of VRA renewal in order to get a bill passed this session. In this post, I want to suggest that if those members in the House who are holding up renewal are doing so because they really want a "modernized" bill that can pass constitutional muster (as opposed to simply trying to stall the bill in the hopes that section 5 won't get renewed), they should be willing to compromise too.
What might the form of compromise look like? Recall there were two amendments being allowed by the Rules Committee. One would change the trigger and the other would enact the proactive bailout proposal similar to the one I've been advocating.
The trigger formula is not a serious proposal. It would apparently end preclearance for every state, except Hawaii, which would be the sole covered jurisdiction. In the spirit of compromise, members should drop this amendment. A serious compromise could begin with H.R. 9 and make the following changes:
1. proactive bailout (with the modifications I discussed
this morning)
2. a shorter time period (say 10 to 15 years)
3. raising the population threshold for section 203 by 5%
-- 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