<x-flowed>Actually, I thought the newly reauthorized VRA takes effect immediately (i.e., today) and I thought it effectively deletes the relevant sections of the old law, which would have been effective for another year.
Am I wrong about that? I do not think there is an effective date in the law; it simply piggy backs onto the old language from 1982 that says 25 years from the effective date of the act, but now the cross reference is to the Fannie Lou Hamer etc. Act. [Incidentally, this would mean the legislation will expire in the middle of the 2031 redistricting process. The relevant amendments to section 203 are phrased a little differently.]

If I am right, this would raise an interesting question for the remedial plan in LULAC. In general, federal court plans do not need to go through preclearance, unless they Òreflect
the policy choices of the elected representatives of the people.Ó McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 153 (1981). I would think that the TX Attorney General's plan, if adopted wholesale by the court, would need to go through preclearance under the new "diminished ability to elect" standard, whereas most of the other proposals would not. By the way, for those who are interested in the law governing court drawn redistricting plans, I have placed a copy of a GW law review article I wrote on the subject at the following link:

http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/npersily/workinprogress/NEWEST%20DRAFTS/Persily_gw.pdf

As long as I have you --
I have also posted my chapter for the new Brooking/Cato volume on electoral competition edited by Michael McDonald and John Samples. The editors graciously agreed to allow me to update it to reflect the competition-related issues in Randall v. Sorrell and LULAC. It is available at the following link:

http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/npersily/workinprogress/NEWEST%20DRAFTS/persily.competition.pdf


Nate

Rick Hasen wrote:

I think it is fairly common to seek a declaratory judgment that a new law is unconstitutional before its effective date. I don't see how the fact that this law is a renewal changes the ripeness question.

Brian Landsberg wrote:

Why would such a suit be ripe?  Section Five is not amended at all.  The
main operative amendment is the extension for 25 more years, but
extension is not needed until next year.  So if DOJ were, for example,
to object to a change tomorrow, even if the new Act were
unconstitutional, the objection could stand under the Act's
pre-amendment provision.

 

Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> 7/27/2006 9:36:38 AM >>>
       

I would think that it would be possible to at least bring a declaratory
judgment now, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the law as amended.

Brian Landsberg wrote: The responses to your questions have addressed
the where but not thewhen question.  Since the Act, before being
amended, did not sunsetuntil next year, wouldn't challenges have to wait
until that sun hasset?  Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu> 7/26/2006
9:27:45 PM >>>        If someone files a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the renewed section 5 (or other provision, such as
section 203), would thecase be filed before a three-judge court?  Or
would it go through a normal district court- court of appeal-cert to
Supreme Court process? Is there anything in the Act that speaks to
jurisdiction?  If there isa choice of where to file, any thinking on
where and when such achallenge would be filed?  -- Rick HasenWilliam H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of LawLoyola Law
School919 Albany StreetLos Angeles, CA 90015-1211(213)736-1466(213)380-3769 -
faxrick.hasen@lls.eduhttp://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
 

-- 
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