Subject: Re: [EL] "Opposition" to VRA
From: Justin Levitt
Date: 2/4/2011, 11:39 AM
To: "jon.roland@constitution.org" <jon.roland@constitution.org>
CC: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

As Micah Altman and Michael McDonald have written, and as I have echoed, computer algorithms are tools that -- like any tool -- can be used or misused.  It's not hard to write a computer algorithm elegantly designed to accomplish all kinds of mischief, and then step back and claim that no "human involvement" has gotten in the way.  But somebody had to write the algorithm, and bound up in that process are the values of the algorithm's author, which may or may not be widely shared.

Justin

On 2/4/2011 10:07 AM, Jon Roland wrote:
A major constitutional problem with the VRA as interpreted and applied is to look to the result of the redistricting process rather than to the process itself. There can be an impartial, nondiscriminatory process that nevertheless dilutes "minority opportunity" districts, such as using computer algorithms with no human involvement, and therefore no possibility for racial discrimination. We need to adopt a process like that described at http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/redistrict/cnpr.htm and someone needs to present the option to the Supreme Court. This endless litigation over maps is getting tiresome.
-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law


-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt@lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321