Symposium on Voting Rights in the Wake of Shelby County v. Holder

…F Jackals, Tall Ships, and the Endless Forest of Lies: Foreword to Symposium on the Voting Rights in the Wake of Shelby County v. Holder Anthony Paul Farley PDF Eviscerating the Voting Rights Act and Moral Authority: Freedom to Discriminate Comes with a Price Patricia A. Broussard PDF Elimination Dance Sarah Jane Forman PDF The Past as Prologue: Shelby County v. Holder and the Risks Ahead J. Corey Harris PDF Demography and Democracy…

Continue reading
Share

“Do the Facts of Voting Rights Support Chief Justice Roberts’s Opinion in Shelby County?”

Looks like a major empirical paper out from Morgan Kousser (forthcoming, Transatlanica).  Here is the abstract: In June, 2013, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court brought to an abrupt and likely permanent end the most important provision of the most successful civil rights law in U.S. history. Initially passed in 1965, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required “covered jurisdictions,” at first in the Deep South and later extended to Texa…

Continue reading
Share

Nick Stephanopoulos on the Alabama Redistricting Case

Here is a guest blog post from Nick Stephanopoulos: The rapidly congealing conventional wisdom is that last week’s Alabama redistricting case was no big deal. And the conventional wisdom is mostly right. The case confirmed the prevailing understanding of racial gerrymandering claims: that they apply to individual districts rather than plans in their entirety; and that equal population is a background rule for redistricting, not a motive that can…

Continue reading
Share

Opinion Analysis: A Small Victory for Minority Voters, or a Case with “Profound” Constitutional Implications?

[cross-posted at SCOTUSBlog.] It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case giving a small, and perhaps only temporary, victory for minority voters in a dispute over the redrawing of Alabama’s legislative districts after the 2010 census. Indeed, although the Supreme Court sent this “racial gerrymandering” case back f…

Continue reading
Share

“Shelby Missed Selma Ceremony, Citing Scheduling Conflicts”

Roll Call: While the nation’s attention was focused on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” the senior senator from Alabama was hours from Selma, participating in his annual tour of the state’s 67 counties. Sen. Richard C. Shelby’s office posted photos on Twitter from unrelated events with constituents in four counties, including an equipment company in Lamar County and a 3M facility in Marion County. According to…

Continue reading
Share

“North of Selma, black leaders ‘fighting the same battle’”

WaPo: There will be no party here this weekend. While thousands are gathering just an hour or so south in Selma to remember one of the high marks of the civil rights movement, black leaders say there is nothing to celebrate. Political leaders, including President Obama, and foot soldiers of the movement are in Selma to observe the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march that helped to propel the passage of the Voting Rights Act. But this…

Continue reading
Share

“The State as Witness: Windsor, Shelby County, and Judicial Distrust of the Legislative Record”

Bertrall Ross has posted this draft on SSRN (NYU Law Review).  Here is the abstract: More than ever, the constitutionality of laws turns on judicial review of an underlying factual record, assembled by lawmakers. Some scholars have suggested that by requiring extensive records, the Supreme Court is treating lawmakers like administrative agencies. The assumption underlying this metaphor is that if the state puts forth enough evidence in the reco…

Continue reading
Share

No, Shelby County Did Not “Abrogate” South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Joel Heller has a very nice piece in the California Law Review Circuit, Subsequent History Omitted, on Westlaw’s aberrant coding of the Shelby County voting rights case as having abrogated the original case upholding voting rights preclearance, South Carolina v. Katzenbach.  From the piece’s conclusion: In labeling Katzenbach “abrogated by Shelby County,” Westlaw not only made an unwarranted value judgment, but also potentially swaye…

Continue reading
Share

“Devising a Standard for Section 3: Post-Shelby County Voting Rights Litigation”

Roseann Romano, adding to a growing list of important student notes on bail-in, for the Iowa Law Review: In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which dismantled the modern voting rights enforcement regime by declaring section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) unconstitutional, plaintiffs in voting rights lawsuits have sought protection from a little-used provision of the VRA: section 3(c). Section 3(c) allows…

Continue reading
Share

“Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s Pocket Trigger to Protect Voting Rights After Shelby County v. Holder”

Paul Wiley has written this very (and timely, given Texas) important student note for the Washington and Lee Law Review. From the Introduction: One of those portions of the Voting Rights Act that remained untouched by Shelby County is § 3(c)15—the “bail-in” or “pocket trigger” provision.16 Section 3(c) authorizes a court presiding over a successful voting rights suit to impose a preclearance regime on the defendant jurisdiction, thus requiring t…

Continue reading
Share

The Biggest Aspect of the Texas Case: Texas To Be Covered Again by Section 5 (If Case Stands)

Justin noted a key aspect of the Texas id decision which I want to highlight: “Also extremely important: the court expressly finds intentional discrimination relevant to bail-in under the Voting Rights Act, and says it will consider a bail-in order in the days to come.  If the court indeed follows up with a bail-in order, Texas could become the first state brought back under a preclearance regime since Shelby County.” Getting Texas a…

Continue reading
Share

The Virginia redistricting decision

Rick mentioned the Virginia congressional redistricting decision earlier today. I’ve already seen some confusion about this: the decision doesn’t depend on Shelby County.  Indeed, as I read it, the decision would have been exactly the the same if Shelby County came out differently — or hadn’t been decided at all. Instead, what the court found is that Virginia’s deployment of race in the redistricting process was ham…

Continue reading
Share

Breaking: 4th Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Partially Blocks NC Voting Changes: Analysis

The 4th Circuit on a 2-1 vote (on a panel made up of all Democratic appointees) has issued an opinion requiring North Carolina to restore same day voter registration and the counting of out of precinct ballots in the upcoming election. The majority offers a generous but reasonable reading of the scope of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The main difference with the dissent is over the question whether making these changes now is going to cau…

Continue reading
Share

Justice Ginsburg Reflects on Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and Shelby County

TNR interview of the Justice by Jeff Rosen: JR: And you’ve discouraged separate concurrences. RBG: Yes. JR: Why is that? RBG: The experience I don’t want to see repeated occurred in Bush v. Gore. The Court divided five to four. There were four separate dissents, and that confused the press. In fact, some of the reporters announced that the decision was seven-two. There was no time to get together. That case was accepted by the Court on Saturday,…

Continue reading
Share

“Rethinking District of Columbia Venue in Voting Rights Preclearance Actions”

Michael Solimine has written this Essay for the Georgetown Law Journal.  Here is the beginning: In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court held that the preclearance provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was unconstitutional as presently constituted.  Section 5 of the VRA requires certain states, mainly in the Deep South, to preclear certain changes to their election laws before they can go into effect. These states must either seek ap…

Continue reading
Share

UN Committee on Racial Discrimination in US Issues Recommendations on Voting Rights

Here: Right to vote 11. The Committee is concerned at the obstacles faced by individuals belonging to racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples to effectively exercise their right to vote, due inter alia to restrictive voter identification laws, district gerrymandering, and state-level felon disenfranchisement laws. It is also concerned at the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 4(b) of the Voti…

Continue reading
Share

More on Texas’s Argument DOJ Too Partisan to Enforce Voting Rights Act

…th Amendment―concerns that are particularly relevant to a section 3(c) analysis in the wake of Shelby County, where the Supreme Court placed the entire preclearance regime on tenuous constitutional grounds. See Shelby County, 133 S. Ct. at 2620 (holding that the very existence of a  “preclearance” requirement raises grave constitutional questions”). Defendants’ allegations and defenses are not offered for nothing; each one of them bears directly…

Continue reading
Share

“Vulnerability in Numbers: Racial Composition of the Electorate, Voter Suppression, and the Voting Rights Act”

…eith Bentele have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming Harvard Latino Law Review).  Here is the abstract: In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court rendered one of the most potent antidiscrimination provisions of American law a dead letter: the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Shelby County held that the formula determining which jurisdictions are required to obtain federal approval for voting law changes was outd…

Continue reading
Share

“Shelby County v. Holder and the gutting of federal preclearance of election law changes”

Dick Engstrom has written this article in Politics, Groups, and Identities.  Here is the abstract: The preclearance provision of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was rendered ineffective by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County, AL v. Holder. This provision required federal review of changes in the election policies and practices of state and local governments with particularly bad histories of racial discrimination in thei…

Continue reading
Share

Breaking: Federal Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in North Carolina Voting Case – Analysis

You can read the 125-page ruling here. I have now had a chance to quickly read the district court’s 125-page ruling in this case.  Here are my initial thoughts. 1. This is a careful, well-written and well-reasoned decision rejecting the U.S. and private plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act and constitutional claims against some key provisions of strict North Carolina’s voting law passed last year. The opinion was only on a preliminary…

Continue reading
Share

“New Report Shows Continued Pattern of Voting Rights Discrimination—African American, Latino, Asian American and Native American Voters More Vulnerable Than Ever”

Major new report issued by the National Commission on Voting Rights: On the anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act and a year after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v Holder decision gutted a vital protection of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the National Commission on the Voting Rights has released a new national report showing where and how that minority voters continue to be hurt by discrimination in the U.S. The report, Protectin…

Continue reading
Share

Top Recent Downloads in Election Law on SSRN

(my bimonthly listing) Here: RECENT TOP PAPERS for all papers first announced in the last 60 days 6 Jun 2014 through 5 Aug 2014 Rank Downloads Paper Title 1 54 Voter Privacy in the Age of Big Data Ira Rubinstein New York University (NYU) – Information Law Institut Date posted to database: 11 Jun 2014 Last Revised: 25 Jul 2014 2 33 ‘You’ve Got Your Crook, I’ve Got Mine': Why the Disqualificati…

Continue reading
Share

DOJ Files Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Voter ID Case, Statement of Interest in Ohio Early Voting Case

DOJ Wisconsin Filing DOJ Ohio Filing Ryan Reilly HuffPo story. DOJ Press release: ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER ANNOUNCES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILINGS IN VOTING RIGHTS CASES IN WISCONSIN AND OHIO   WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that the Justice Department has submitted filings in voting rights cases in Wisconsin and Ohio.  The department’s involvement in these two cases represents its latest steps to enforce the remainin…

Continue reading
Share

Now Available: 2014 Supplement to Lowenstein, Hasen, & Tokaji: Election Law Cases and Materials

…ed version of of the Supreme Court’s new campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC, an edited version of Shelby County v. Holder, and an edited version of the lower court decision in the Alabama redistricting cases which the Supreme Court will hear in the October 2014 term. The supplement also considers developments in Voting Rights Act litigation after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County case as well as cover litigation over citizenship…

Continue reading
Share

An Anticipatory Overruling of #Abood in #Harris Case?

…n the 2009 NAMUDNO case. Instead it signaled the Act was unconstitutional, and then overturned it in the 2013 Shelby County case. As I’ve explained, the Court in Shelby County relied upon dicta in NAMUDNO as though that earlier case had settled it. Similarly, on the campaign finance side, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito signalled the coming overruling of the ban on corporate general treasury spending in elections in the Wisconsin R…

Continue reading
Share

About that #SCOTUS Unanimity…A Skeptical Note

Today’s unanimous opinion in the cell phone cases is the latest in an unusual term of unanimity on the Supreme Court. I don’t want to downplay things, but I think the unanimity is likely an aberration. To begin with, the Court is still divided on big issues like campaign finance. Witness the bitter divisions in McCutcheon this term.  Or Shelby County on voting rights last term. And it is still quite divided on abortion and same sex m…

Continue reading
Share

“Shelby County One Year Later: Good for Voting Rights?”

Franita Tolson: “Despite these developments, the lesson of Shelby County should not be that states have broad authority to impose restrictive voting regulations. The true lesson of the decision, one year later, is that even the most painful and costly loss can be a vehicle for effectuating change. The loss of the preclearance regime forced advocates to be more aggressive in using creative legal arguments and obscure statutory provisions in…

Continue reading
Share

One Year After Shelby County

Here was the lede of my NY Times oped from the day after the decision, The Chief Justice’s Long Game: IN an opinion brimming with a self-confidence that he hides behind a cloak of judicial minimalism, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for a conservative Supreme Court majority in Shelby County v. Holder, cripples Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court pretends it is not striking down the act but merely sending the law back t…

Continue reading
Share

VRAA DOA?

It is sure looking that way. And it is no surprise. As I wrote the day the bill dropped in January: The politics and path dependence.  Despite these constitutional issues, I would bet that the VRAA would have passed in 2006 and the Supreme Court would have upheld it despite the constitutional issues flagged in points 2 and 3 above. The Supreme Court would have seen Congress making a broad and real effort to update the coverage formula, and to ta…

Continue reading
Share

How is the SCOTUS Opinion in Bond Like NAMUDNO?

…itical branches a window of time in which to take action. This hesitancy was nowhere to be found in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which the Court chose to hear despite the absence of a circuit split. By exhibiting a high degree of restraint in the moment, Northwest Austin ironically established the groundwork for Shelby County‘s subsequent invalidation of a key federal statute with bipartisan support in Congress. Bond looks a lot like Northwe…

Continue reading
Share

Top Recent Downloads in Election Law on SSRN

…Chicago – Law School Date posted to database: 11 Apr 2014 Last Revised: 17 May 2014 6 30 Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s Pocket Trigger to Protect Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holder Paul M. Wiley Washington and Lee University – School of Law Date posted to database: 9 Apr 2014 Last Revised: 9 Apr 2014 7 30 Compulsory Voting and the Attitudinal Deconsolidation of Democracy Sha…

Continue reading
Share

Volume 13:2 of ELJ Now Available, With 2-Week Free Access to AALS Symposium Articles

Editorial The Party Line Paul Gronke Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. June 2014, 13(2): 227-227. First Page | Full Text PDF or HTML | Reprints | Permissions Articles The Effects of Voter ID Notification on Voter Turnout: Results from a Large-Scale Field Experiment Jack Citrin, Donald P. Green, Morris Levy Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. June 2014, 13(2): 228-242. Abstract | Full Text PDF or HTM…

Continue reading
Share

“Savior Through Severance: A Litigation-Based Response to Shelby County v. Holder”

…s-Civil Liberties Law Review). Here is the abstract: On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, ruling that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and “can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance” under Section 5. In the four months after Shelby County was decided, sixteen states enacted restrictions on voting that Republicans be…

Continue reading
Share

Federal District Court Denies $2 Million Attorneys Fees Request to Shelby County Plaintiffs

You can find Judge Bates’ 35-page thoughtful opinion here (via Mike Scarcella). The judge’s main point is that Congress did not intend attorneys fees in cases in which a plaintiff was not enforcing voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment but instead was seeking to overturn a congressional statute enforcing voting rights. It seems a sensible result to me, but it raises a number of issues of first impression, so there could be an a…

Continue reading
Share

“The Play in the Joints of the Election Clauses”

Derek Muller has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming Election Law Journal). Here is the abstract: The Constitution delegates election administration to both the federal government and the state governments. But delineating the boundary between these sovereigns has not been a particularly easy task. The Supreme Court has not been inclined to offer precision regarding the proper scope of authority. This essay examines risk of overlapping roles…

Continue reading
Share

“The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: A Constitutional Response to Shelby County”

ACS: ACS is pleased to distribute “The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: A Constitutional Response to Shelby County,” an Issue Brief by William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government, American University Washington College of Law; Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School; Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law, University of California-Davis School of Law; Samuel Bagenstos, Professor of Law, Th…

Continue reading
Share

SCOTUS’s Recycled Outtakes?

Gerard N. Magliocca, writing about today’s Schuette decision, says “The opinions are out, and they are extremely interesting.  (One gets the impression that some of this material was drafted last year for Fischer and left on the cutting room floor.).” I think Gerald is right about J. Sotomayor’s dissent, which is really one which is more appropriate for a case in which the Court blocks an affirmative action plan than this…

Continue reading
Share

Justice Sotomayor’s Schuette Dissent Talks of Shelby County and Voting Rights

…he reference.  There are a number of election cases mentioned in the dissent, including these references to the Shelby County decision, striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. 11. Attempts by the majority to make it more difficult for the minority to exercise its right to vote are, sadly, not a thing of the past. See Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 15–17) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (describing recent ex…

Continue reading
Share

New Ed Blum Voting Rights Lawsuit in Texas

…D.C. are counsel for the Plaintiffs. They successfully represented Shelby Co. Alabama in Shelby Co. Ala v. Holder and Abigail Fisher in Fisher v. Univ. of Texas last term at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Also representing the Plaintiffs is Meredith B. Parenti of Parenti Law PLLC in Houston, Texas.   Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, said, “One-person, one-vote is the cornerstone of our nation’s most enduring election princ…

Continue reading
Share

Updated/Final Versions of Some of My Articles on Campaign Finance, Voting Rights

I’ve posted an updated version, including a short discussion of McCutcheon, of Super PAC Contributions, Corruption, and the Proxy War over Coordination, forthcoming in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy. I have posted the final version of Three Wrong Progressive Approaches (and One Right One) to Campaign Finance Reform, 8 Harvard Law & Policy Review 21 (2014) I have posted the final version of Shelby County and…

Continue reading
Share