More on Westmoreland and Bailout

In this earlier post, I called Rep. Westmoreland’s statement suggesting he will challenge a renewed section 5 as unconstitutional “unfortunate, but not unexpected.” That post followed this earlier post, in which I wrote that “As a matter of politics, I have virtually nothing in common with Rep. Westmoreland, and to me it is a shame that it took someone like him—and likely for the wrong reasons—to sponsor an amendment that I think would have strengthened the Act…”
I have received some e-mails asking me to explain what I meant by these comments, and saying that these comments are unfair to Rep. Westmoreland. I would say this: we likely will never know if Rep. Westmoreland really prefers a renewed and improved section 5 over no section 5 at all. My suspicion is that he is not sincere, based on comments like this one in the LA Times:

    Westmoreland argued that his change would simply “modernize” the act, and he said that he supported renewal.
    But asked how he would react if the dispute prevented the law’s oversight provision from being retained, he said, “I’d feel fine.”

That’s not a smoking gun, and I can’t prove what is in the Representative’s heart. But even granting that he is sincere in what he says, the place we differ most is on our second choice.
Assuming the Senate does not improve section 5 by adding a bailout provision, Rep. Westmoreland’s second choice is to see section 5 struck down by the Supreme Court. My choice is for the Court to uphold it. I very much disagree with the Supreme Court’s standard in its Boerne cases, treating Congress like an administrative agency that needs to come up with adequate “evidence” when it has determined there is conduct by the states that should be subject to federal oversight. My goal has always been to strengthen the Act to prevent the Court from striking it down, whereas it sounds like Rep. Westmoreland would be just as happy with a weakened VRA, no section 5 at all, or a Supreme Court striking down section 5.
I don’t relish the litigation that is to come and worry about the consequences. That’s why I called Rep. Westmoreland’s comment unfortunate.

Share this: