| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 7/7/06 |
| From: DANIEL TOKAJI |
| Date: 7/8/2006, 10:24 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights has scheduled a hearing on Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Legislative Options After LULAC v. Perry, to take place this Thursday at 2 pm. No witnesses are listed yet.
W. Hardy Callcott has filed this petition with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), asking that it amend or repeal MSRB Rule G-37's $250 contribution limit on the ground that it's unconstitutional under Randall v. Sorrell.
U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks ruled yesterday that Rep. Tom DeLay's name must remain on the ballot in Texas' 22nd District, despite the fact that he claims to have moved to Virginia. The AP has this story and NY Times has this one on the decision, which I've posted here.
DeLay is now hinting that he might run in Texas after all. According to this AP story, DeLay reacted to the ruling by saying: "For this guy to say he can't tell where I'm going to be on Election Day, and that I am forced to be on the ballot, well, they may get exactly what they want." The AP also reports that DeLay "didn't say no" when asked if he would run.
Judge Melvin K. Westmoreland of Fulton County Superior Court yesterday issued a temporary restraining order against Georgia's revised photo identification requirement, passed earlier this year. The NY Times has this report and the AP this one. The order comes less than two weeks before the July 18 primary. The court found that the ID requirement would place an undue burden on the right to vote, in violation of the state constitution. Another case challenging the ID requirement is pending in federal court.
A floor debate on Voting Rights Act renewal is slated for next week, according to CQ Weekly (subscription required), which reports that the bill is "penciled in for floor debate late in the week." It also reports the "Rules Committee will have to meet sometime during the week to decide what amendments to permit to the bill."
Mark Posner has published this article, entitled "The Real Story Behind the Justice Department's Implementation of Section 5 of the VRA: Vigorous Enforcement, as Intended by Congress," in the inaugural issue of the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy. Here's the abstract:
This Article examines the manner in which the United States Department of Justice has carried out its responsibility for enforcing the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act since its enactment in 1965. The Justice Department plays a central and preeminent role in the review of new voting laws and procedures adopted by Section 5 jurisdictions, and as Congress moves this year to extend Section 5 beyond its current 2007 expiration date, the question whether the Department has faithfully implemented Section 5 may play an important part in the anticipated Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the extension. The Article identifies the unique features and broadly-encompassing provisions of the Section 5 remedy, analyzes the specific enforcement approaches utilized by the Justice Department, and scrutinizes the assessments that previously have been offered regarding the Department's enforcement actions. The Article concludes that, historically, the Justice Department has enforced Section 5 in a vigorous and principled manner, that the Department's enforcement approach largely is a product of the manner in which Congress constructed the Section 5 remedy, and that the Justice Department, accordingly, has implemented the Section 5 preclearance remedy in precisely the manner that Congress intended. The Justice Department's performance, therefore, fully supports congressional extension of ection 5 and a ruling by the Supreme Court that the reauthorization is constitutional.