Subject: Re: VRA update
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 7/20/2006, 6:26 AM
To: David Epstein
CC: election-law <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>

There was an amendment offered in the House to change the extension to 10 years, but it was defeated on the floor.

David Epstein wrote:

I must say that of all the provisions in the bill, the 25 year extension period is, to my mind, the most likely to trigger rejection by the Court. At one point I heard that 25 years was the ideal point of those drafting the legislation, but they expected it to get whittled down. I'm surprised that no amendment was offered to that effect in either chamber. In a way, this is playing a game of "chicken" with the Court, but I fear we may be revisiting these issues within a couple of years.



On 7/20/06, Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu> wrote:

Senate Set to Debate--and Approve VRA--after 8 Hours of Debate Thursday

So reports Roll Call. Sen. Hatch predicted that his Republican colleagues will offer no amendments. Also, regarding the addition of Cesar Chavez to the name of the bill, the newspaper reports: "Because the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to an amendment adding labor leader Cesar Chavez's name to the bill, Frist was forced to bring up the House version, since moving forward with the Senate's bill would have required a conference with the House " At the markup, Sen. Coburn was critical of the rush to reauthorization without adequate debate. We'll see if he---or other Senators---make any such remarks on the floor of the Senate. At the hearing where I testified, Senators Cornyn and Sessions made many remarks questioning the current version of the bill. But political realities seem to have intervened. The newspaper quotes Senator Sessions as stating: "There's no interest in the Senate in making amendments to the House bill."

So, in the end, there will be no serious debate on either floor of Congress about the wisdom or constitutionality of a straight-out 25 year extension, complete with its Georgia v. Aschroft "fix." This is a victory, no doubt, for the voting rights leaders who pushed for this bill. Justice Kennedy will likely determine if the victory is to be short-lived.


David Epstein wrote:

I just got the word from a friend in Schumer's office.

The bill passed unanimously in committee. All of the Democrats were present except Finegold, who was managing a bill on the floor.

The only substantive amendment offered was by Coburn, which would have changed the definition of "limited English proficiency" to include only people who spoke English "not well" or "not at all." It failed on a voice vote and then Coburn voted for the bill in the end.

(Funny tidbit -- Specter accidentally mis-annouced the result of the voice vote, saying "The Ayes appear to have it." Feinstein broke in saying "No, the Nays have it," upon which Schumer quipped "That's why we need the Voting Rights Act.")

There was one symbolic amendment which passed, offered by Leahy (I believe) in Salazar's name, adding Cesar Chavez to the title of the bill. This is in fact purely symbolic, since the Senate plans to take up the House version of the bill tomorrow (with the original title) so as to avoid a conference. (There was some talk about revising the title at some point in the fall.)

The room was packed, and when the final vote was taken the room burst into applause. It sounds like quite an emotional scene.

There is reportedly a unanimous consent request being floated to start debate on the bill tonight, in preparation for a floor vote tomorrow, but I don't have confirmation of that.

All in all, an apparently amazingly fast end to what seemed like stalled legislation, and a big, big victory for the civil right community.


David Epstein


On 7/19/06, Rick Hasen < Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> wrote:

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes VRA Bill with No "Weakening Amendments"

So states this press release from the ACLU. I don't know if that means no amendments at all. But if it does, and the full Senate approves the measure with no amendments, the House and Senate should be able to avoid a conference.

This result is very interesting. I'm still trying to learn what happened to the concerns raised by some senators on the committee about renewal.

I expect a race to the courthouse among plaintiffs to challenge section 5 (and possibly section 203) after President Bush signs the renewed VRA into law.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:23 PM 
-- 
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



--

**************************************
David Epstein
Professor of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
212-854-7566
http://www.columbia.edu/~de11
**************************************

-- 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



--

**************************************
David Epstein
Professor of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
212-854-7566
http://www.columbia.edu/~de11
************************************** 

-- 
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