thanks
Mark. That's very helpful. So if it is brought before a single
district judge in DC, I assume this means that the DC Circuit would
then hear any appeal, and the Supreme Court would have discretion
whether or not to hear the case on cert.
If that's right, it seems to me that a challenger might then want to
bring suit in conjunction with a preclearance request, to take
advantage of bringing a mandatory appeal, rather than cert. petition,
to the Supreme Court.
Rick
Mark & Franca Posner wrote:
Rick,
It seems pretty clear that, unless the constitutional challenge
proceeds straight to the Supreme Court by way of the court accepting
original jurisdiction (which seems unlikely), the case will need to be
filed in the DC District Court. Section 14(b) of the VRA, 42 USC
1973l, specifies that the DC District Court is the only court that has
jurisdiction to issue a "restraining order or temporary or permanent
injunction against the execution or enforcement of any provision of
this Act."
If the challenge is brought in conjunction with a preclearance request,
it will be heard by a three-judge court. That is what occurred in City
of Rome v. US, 446 U.S. 156 (1980), and County Council of Sumter County
v. US, 555 F. Supp. 694, 707-08 (1983). If, on the other hand, it is
brought as a stand-alone claim, it will be heard by a single district
judge (the three-judge court provision is found in Section 5 and only
applies to actions brought under that section). See Briscoe v. Bell,
432 U.S. 404 (1977) (case brought by the State of Texas seeking to
enjoin the AG and the Director of the Census from publishing their
determination that Texas was to become a covered jurisdiction pursuant
to the 1975 amendments to the VRA). Although Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384
U.S. 641 (1966) (challenge to the constitutionality of Section 4(e) of
the VRA), was brought before a three-judge DC District Court, the
three-judge designation was pursuant to a statute that since has been
repealed (28 USC 2282).
Mark Posner
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hasen"
<rick.hasen@lls.edu>
To: "election-law" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:27 AM
Subject: jurisdiction if VRA section 5 constitutionality is challenged
If someone files a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the renewed section 5 (or other provision, such as
section 203), would the case 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 is a choice of where to file, any thinking on
where and when such a challenge would be filed?
--
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
--
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