| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 7/1/06 |
| From: DANIEL TOKAJI |
| Date: 7/1/2006, 7:37 AM |
| To: election-law |
The AP has this report on the actions taken by the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed. The State of Washington requires felons to complete their parole and probation before they can vote again. A state judge struck down the state's requirement that ex-felons also satisfy their financial obligations before voting, but an appeal of that issue is pending before the state's supreme court.
The Sacramento Bee has this story on yesterday's action by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and the LA Times this one. The Bee reports that "Schwarzenegger and the other two respondents named in the FPPC action have agreed to pay a fine of $200,200 for 143 violations of the state's Political Reform Act in spending more than $25 million on television advertisements last year in support of Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77."
Matthew Cardinale of the Atlanta Progressive News reports here on his telephone interview with Representative John Lewis (D-GA) regarding the status of Voting Rights Act reauthorization. Rep. Lewis predicts that the VRA will be renewed, but says: "I do believe there is a deliberate, systematic attempt to deny certain groups in our population access to the ballot, to limit the participation of more people in the political process."
Rick Pildes offers the following thoughts in response to Heather Gerken, who was in turn responding to Rick's earlier listserv post:
I feel obliged to respond to Heather Gerken, which I can do quite briefly, regarding Justice Kennedy's views in the Texas case and the future of the VRA. To my mind, nose-counting and speculation about opinion drafts miss the essential point I mean to convey. We all assume Justice Kennedy defines the center -- is the defining Justice -- in closely contested VRA cases before the Court. And the central theme of "the music" played in his opinion is that, as he puts it in one passage: "We do a disservice to these important goals [of the VRA] by failing to account for the differences between people of the same race." In this case, he does not address whether failing to do so might violate the Constitution; he comes close to saying it violates the VRA (whether he did so conclude in an earlier draft is also not particularly significant, in my view), but does not actually so hold. But the precise legal resolution is not important. What's important is the principle or viewpoint expres sed in that passage and similar ones. That viewpoint is going to have ramifications throughout the Court's interpretation and application of the VRA, not just on the narrow issue of whether districts must be "coherent" as well as "compact." Sometimes, this viewpoint will get expressed in terms of how racially-polarized voting should be defined, the conventional definition of which I believe will come under increasing pressure; sometimes I believe it will come in through how the "totality of the circumstances" is analyzed; sometimes it will emerge through Kennedy's application of Shaw; sometimes, through how Section 2 is interpreted in other ways. The viewpoint essential to his opinion in Texas will find various specific legal expression, not all of which can be anticipated at this stage. But this is not a throwaway view in this particular case. It's a foundational principle.
As long as Justice Kennedy remains at the center of the Court on VRA issues, that is why I believe this decision is pregnant with profound implications. I do gree with Heather that if Justice Kennedy turns out not be at the center of the Court -- if, for example, Justice Scalia turns out to be more receptive to maintaining prior interpretations of the VRA than does Justice Kennedy, then of course, all bets are off.
At least six south Texas congressional districts may be affected by the Court's decision, according to this report in the San Antonio Express News. In addition to the district of Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio), the ones potentially affected reportedly include those of Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo), Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio), Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin), Ruben Hinojosa (D-Mercedes), and Solomon Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi). Meanwhile, George Will has this comment on the opinion in the Washington Post. And National Journal's Hotline has this post
summarizing reactions from some members of the electionlaw listserv.
The AP reports here that the House voted to "affirm the right of voters in areas with large populations of non-English-speaking citizens to cast ballots in their native language." The House reportedly rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) to a bill funding the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State by a 254-167 margin. Democrats joined just under one-third of Republicans in opposing the amendment, which apparently would have prevented federal funding for language assistance. This suggests that there's support among a majority of the House -- though substantially less than a majority of the majority -- for renewal of the Voting RIghts Act's language assistance provisions.