| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 7/17/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 7/17/2006, 6:54 AM |
| To: election-law |
New York Magazine offers this article, with the subhead: "The fight over David Yassky's entry into the congressional race in a heavily black district obscures a crucial fact: The GOP loves minority-majority districts."
More
fallout from Padilla v. Lever, even as the panel's decision has
been vacated and we await the en banc ruling from the Ninth Circuit.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has this
editorial on the Tom DeLay ballot access case.
Tom Mann has written this
Washington Post oped on potential changeover in the U.S.
House of Representatives. Bob Bauer comments
on the relationship of Tom's views here to his views on the effects of
partisan gerrymandering on competitiveness.
Don't miss this
front-page article in the Washington Post.
Roll Call offers this report,
which notes that the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up the bill
Wednesday, and that so far no Senators have offered amendments. The
Senators to watch on the committee are Cornyn, Sessions, and Coburn.
We'll see if they offer amendments or take any steps to slow down
consideraiton of the bill. Reps. Norwood and Westmoreland have made
overtures to the Senate to get their amendments considered in that
chamber, so far with no response, the newspaper reports.
CQPolitics offers this detailed
analysis. For even more analysis, visit Capitol
Annex.
my email was down Saturday.
In this earlier post, I called Rep. Westmoreland's statement suggesting he will challenge a renewed section 5 as unconstitutional "unfortunate, but not unexpected." That post followed this earlier post, in which I wrote that "As a matter of politics, I have virtually nothing in common with Rep. Westmoreland, and to me it is a shame that it took someone like him---and likely for the wrong reasons---to sponsor an amendment that I think would have strengthened the Act..."
I have received some e-mails asking me to explain what I meant by
these comments, and saying that these comments are unfair to Rep.
Westmoreland. I would say this: we likely will never know if Rep.
Westmoreland really prefers a renewed and improved section 5 over no
section 5 at all. My suspicion is that he is not sincere, based on
comments like this
one in the LA Times:
But asked how he would react if the dispute prevented the law's oversight provision from being retained, he said, "I'd feel fine."
That's not a smoking gun, and I can't prove what is in the Representative's heart. But even granting that he is sincere in what he says, the place we differ most is on our second choice.
Assuming the Senate does not improve section 5 by adding a bailout provision, Rep. Westmoreland's second choice is to see section 5 struck down by the Supreme Court. My choice is for the Court to uphold it. I very much disagree with the Supreme Court's standard in its Boerne cases, treating Congress like an administrative agency that needs to come up with adequate "evidence" when it has determined there is conduct by the states that should be subject to federal oversight. My goal has always been to strengthen the Act to prevent the Court from striking it down, whereas it sounds like Rep. Westmoreland would be just as happy with a weakened VRA, no section 5 at all, or a Supreme Court striking down section 5.
I don't relish the litigation that is to come and worry about the consequences. That's why I called Rep. Westmoreland's comment unfortunate.
-- 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