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