Subject: Re: [EL] At-large districts op-ed
From: John Tanner
Date: 3/5/2011, 11:01 AM
To: Rob Richie
CC: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

I'll add a sour note.  The alternative systems frequently fail to offer minorities any representation at all.  The successes are mainly in Alabama where the ADC gave black voters an extraordinary level of organization.  The election systems that seem so clear to those of us on the listserve are easily misunderstood by ordinary voters, and the Justice Departmetn actually has interposed section 5 objections where jurisdictions have failed to explain the system adequately.  I recall a law professor's blog about his difficulty explaining cumulative voting to his class (he finally got through to them with M&Ms).  To be effective, the new system must be thoroughly explained to voters.  The hghly detailed publicity program ordered for Portchester NY is a good model.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org> wrote:
To add to Justin's good point (and good linked resource, three Section 2 cases brought by the Dept. of Justice in recent years ended up with enactment of an alternative to winner-take-all elections. Relating to California specifically, FairVote joined with California Common Cause for an amicus making this point in the Modesto amicus case that is posted here:
http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-and-california-common-cause-file-amicus-defending-state-voting-rights-act

Given that many California communities experience significant demographic shifts during the course of a decade and often have more than one racial minority group living in the same communities, such alternatives can make particular sense to consider -- with one nice result being that voters then can determine their representation with their votes in every election rather than relying on the munificence of mapmakers every ten years.

Rob Richie, FairVote

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Justin Levitt <Justin.Levitt@lls.edu> wrote:
If at-large elections are unlawfully denying minorities the opportunity to elect candidates of choice, moving to districts is certainly one common option.  But at a conference of municipal attorneys just over one year ago, I mentioned some other potential options -- different voting systems -- for jurisdictions seeking to keep at-large elections while still ensuring a fair and lawful opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of choice.   For local jurisdictions looking to adjust to new census numbers, it's good to keep in mind that there may be more than one answer on the menu.
-- 
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


On 3/5/2011 8:44 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:

"Eliminate at-large districts -- or lose costly lawsuits"

Rod Pacheco has written this oped in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:47 AM



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




--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote  
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org  rr@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!


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