"GOP splits but Dem deal on VRA holds"

The Hill offers this must-read report on VRA renewal, which states that "Democrats and civil-rights leaders compromised on measures regarding voter protection, including those to curb the use of photo-ID laws, to ensure that a bill would be passed before the bill sponsor, committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), gives up his gavel at the end of the legislative session, according to several Democratic sources in the House, including multiple committee staffers. Democrats are concerned about the possibility of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) as the next committee chairman and the prospect of a significantly weakened Voting Rights Act under his chairmanship."

Another snippet:

In an e-mailed response to The Hill yesterday, Smith said that he would support two amendments offered by Reps. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) that would significantly modify Section 5. The Norwood amendment would modify the formula for pre-clearance scrutiny, opening up Justice Department oversight to all 50 states. Democrats and civil-rights groups have said such a proposal could only be intended to kill the Voting Rights Act. The House Rules Committee last week cleared both amendments for floor votes.

I don't think the article accurately summarized what the Norwood amendment would do, but it is quite significant that Rep. Smith says he supports it. As I've said, the Norwood amendment is not a serious measure, but one designed to scuttle the entire section 5 apparatus. The Westmoreland amendment, on the other hand, is (at least in theory, if not in how it is actually drafted) a proposal that could help insure the constitutionality of a renewed section 5 without unduly weakening it.

More news and commentary on the Vermont decision

New York Times (and see this editorial)

Wall Street Journal (and see this editorial)

Washington Post

USA Today

NVRI Press release

Roll Call (paid subscription required)

UPDATE:

Los Angeles Times

Christian Science Monitor

Bob Bauer

Allison Hayward (National Review Online)

Ned Foley (Moritz weekly comment)

Boston Globe

Las Vegas Review Journal (editorial)

Pitts: Vermont Is Not A Covered Jurisdiction, But...

Obviously, there is no explicit connection between today's Supreme Court decision involving Vermont's campaign finance laws and the extension of the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But there might be a subtle connection if you read between the lines, for the Vermont decision might provide a helpful clue about the views regarding the constitutionality of Section 5 of a Justice who did not actually pen one of the six separate opinions in today's case--Chief Justice Roberts.

Today's decision in Vermont provides evidence that the Chief meant what he said when he indicated during his confirmation hearings that he would have great respect for the Court's well-established precedents. Notice that the Chief joined Justice Breyer's discussion of stare decisis, whereas the other recent addition to the Court, Justice Alito, used a concurrence to specifically divorce himself from that portion of Breyer's opinion. Of course, one should be careful not to read too much into this, but what it could portend for Section 5 is that arguments from precedent using South Carolina v. Katzenbach and City of Rome will generate traction with the Chief.

I think this is important because (assuming no changes in the composition of the Court) the fifth vote for the constitutionality of Section 5 will likely have to come from Chief Justice Roberts. Although Justice Kennedy has now seemingly replaced Justice O'Connor as the new swing vote on the Court, I don't think Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote on the constitutionality of Section 5. Justice Kennedy's previous decisions place him fairly solidly against race-based remedies and fairly solidly against giving broad authority to Congress in the use of its enforcement power. True, he could moderate his views on these subjects and he may yet find a race-based remedy and use of the congressional enforcement power (outside of the Goodman context) that he does not oppose. It's just to say I think it is unlikely Justice Kennedy will change his tune. That means those who wish to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5 will have to sing "Hail to the Chief."

--Mike Pitts

"Demographic Analysis Shows That Registered Voters Lacking a Driver's License or State-Issued Georgia ID Card Are Disproportionately Elderly and Minority"

The Georgia Secretary of State has issued this press release with data, that if they hold up, will prove very important to the constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenges to the Georgia voter identification law.

-- 
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