| Subject: more VRA news and commentary |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 7/13/2006, 5:15 PM |
| To: election-law |
You can find the details of the 390-33 vote (9 not voting) here.
Jeff Wice writes:
The committee heard from five final witnesses: Roger Clegg (Center for Equal Opportunity ), Professor Sherrilyn Ifill of the University of Maryland Law School, Nina Perales of MALDEF, Michael Carvin of DC's Jones Day law firm, Professor Joaquin G. Avila of the Seattle University School of Law, and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chair Abigail Thernstrom.
Of particular interest were Michael Carvin's comments that the VRA legislation would "require not only preservation of existing influence districts, but creation of new ones that never existed before." Carvin maintains that the legislation would restore DOJ's ability to deny Section 5 preclearance "even when there is no dimunution in minority voting strength, if the Department discerns a so-called "discriminatory purpose." He adds that "it is well documented, however, that the Justice Department routinely finds disciminatory purpose every time the submitting authority fails to create the maximum number of minority opportunity districts"" According to Carvin, coalition districts, similar to the one represented in Texas by Martin Frost, would be protected minority districts and would be required in plans submitted to DOJ for preclearance. Ifill and Perales disagreed with Carvin's interpretation, which I do not think was presented to either the Senate or House Judiciary Committees by any other witness.
The Judiciary Committee is now expected to schedule a markup session before sending the bill to the floor.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 South Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-0019 (213)736-1466 - voice (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org