“Louisiana argues parts of Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional in redistricting case”

Department of Justice, Voting Rights Act

When I heard the news of the DOJ backing away from its position in the Callais redistricting case out of Louisiana before the Supreme Court, I realized that I had failed to link to this important story from Jan. 7 in the Louisiana Illuminator about Louisiana’s litigation position in another Voting Rights Act case:

Attorneys representing Louisiana in a lawsuit against the state legislative redistricting plans passed in 2022 are arguing that a key piece of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and should not be applied to the state. 

The case could produce a bellwether decision that impacts Black voting strength in several states where similar challenges have arisen. 

Arguments were presented Tuesday to a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Nairne v. Landry, in which Black voters are challenging the most recent  legislative redistricting maps as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. …

Every case brought under Section 2 is likely to be used as a test case for those that seek to have that portion of the Voting Rights Act overturned, advocates have said. 

The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in Nairne in response to the state’s arguments against Section 2 but remained neutral on the other aspects of the case. 

Noah Bokat-Lindell, a DOJ civil rights attorney, argued states cannot get a carveout from a generally applicable statute. For example, they cannot become exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act because a state argues it doesn’t discriminate against disabled people, he said. 

In a press conference after the hearing, Attorney General Liz Murrill argued that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional, Black voters could still count on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

“Those are legal arguments that we wanted to preserve so that they eventually might make it up to the United States Supreme Court,” Murrill said. “They’ve also been percolating in a number of other cases related to the scope and continuing application of Section 2 to states under current conditions.” 

Let’s watch what Trump’s DOJ does in this 5th Circuit case.

Share this:

“Trump Seeks Pause of Supreme Court Cases, Disavows DOJ Stance on Voting Rights Act “

Department of Justice, Voting Rights Act

Jimmy Hoover for the NLJ:

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court will soon hear appeals to uphold the remedial map by an unlikely alliance of the state of Louisiana and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference and other supporters of the new map, codified as S.B. 8.

In a December brief, the Biden DOJ urged the Supreme Court to “vacate”the lower court’s ruling in light of its “failure to apply the proper” legal framework for racial gerrymandering cases. Former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had even sought argument time for her office when the case is heard by the court.

On Friday, however, Harris—a former Williams & Connolly partner—advised the court that she was rescinding the DOJ’s position in the case. 

Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice hasreconsidered the government’s position in these cases,” she wrote.

“The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the previously filed brief no longer represents the position of the United States,” Harris added. “In addition, the United States is withdrawing its pending motion to participate in the oral argument.”…

Share this:

Scholars of Democratic Backsliding File Amicus Brief in 4th Circuit Warning About Judge Griffin’s Attempt to Overturn the Results of the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court Election

election subversion risk

From the introduction to this brief:

Democracies do not necessarily live forever. Sometimes, they die. Amici’s scholarship shows that they often erode from within, through the degradation of free and fair elections and the capture of independent courts or electoral commissions by ruling parties seeking to expand and entrench their own power. Over the last 20 years, political scientists have documented and analyzed these patterns of democratic backsliding in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela. The process is typically piecemeal—so gradual that it may not “set off society’s alarm bells.” Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die 6 (2018).


Such backsliding is happening now in North Carolina. And Judge Griffin’s effort, to invalidate tens of thousands of votes retroactively and overturn an election in the absence of any evidence of fraud or impropriety, is a dramatic escalation.


If we saw this happening in another country, we would know what to call it.


This is no ordinary legal dispute. Alarm bells should be ringing. From the perspective of political scientists and scholars whostudy the breakdown of democracy, Judge Griffin’s actions represent a profound challenge: Will an American state break with democratic norms and overturn an election decided by a majority of voters? Or will Judge Griffin’s efforts be rejected, despite the ruling party’s wishes?


One thing that separates North Carolina from Hungary or Venezuela is the ability of federal courts to enforce democratic norms embodied in federal law. Most nations do not have the benefit of an independent, politically insulated, supervening judicial authority with a duty to effectuate fundamental democratic commitments. But North Carolina has that, in the form of this Court. This Court should assert jurisdiction here, to enforce the statutory and constitutional rules that prohibit retroactively invalidating thousands of votes and to prevent further degradation of democracy in North Carolina.

Update: Griffin opposes the filing of this brief on timing grounds.

Share this:

Trump Floats Disgusting Idea of Tying Disaster Aid for Los Angeles Wild Fires to California Adopting a Strict Form of Voter Identification

chicanery, fraudulent fraud squad

This one really hits home. I have friends and family who have lost their homes or otherwise been displaced by the awful recent wildfires. The tradition has been to give disaster aid where it is needed —whether that is Florida, North Carolina, or California—without extortion. What crass political opportunism.

A Texas congressman is already on board.

Share this:

“Many Jan. 6 Rioters Pardoned by Trump Attacked Police, Videos Show”

authoritarian threats in US, election subversion risk

NYT:

After Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer during the attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, 2021, he was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison by a federal judge who called him a “one-man army of hate.”

Two other men, Albuquerque Cosper Head and Kyle J. Young, were sentenced to more than seven years for their parts in the assault on the officer, Michael Fanone.

On Monday, President Trump pardoned all three of them, lumping them together with nearly 1,600 other people who had been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot and who he suggested had been victimized by a politicized prosecution. His grant of clemency comes despite a wealth of evidence about their crimes, including videos used against them by the Justice Department.

Some of the videos document the gruesome moment when Officer Fanone, who rushed to defend the Capitol on his day off, was dragged into the crowd by Mr. Head, beaten by Mr. Young and then attacked with a stun gun by Mr. Rodriguez.

Video from Officer Fanone’s body camera shows Mr. Rodriguez driving the stun gun into Officer Fanone’s neck, causing him to scream. Officer Fanone, who has since left the police force, sustained grievous injuries that day and suffered a heart attack.

Even some close allies of Mr. Trump had opposed granting clemency to those rioters found guilty of violent crimes, especially the more than 600 who were convicted of assaulting or resisting police officers. Of those defendants, nearly 175 used a dangerous or deadly weapon, prosecutors say.

Four years later, the violence they committed is still shocking — and the facts of what happened are right there in the images, many of them now iconic.

Here are some of the most egregious acts of violence that took place during the Capitol attack, as seen in videos….

Share this:

“Texas State Bar seeks to dismiss its lawsuit against Ken Paxton for challenging 2020 presidential election”

chicanery, election law biz

Texas Tribune:

The State Bar of Texas on Wednesday moved to drop its lawsuit against Attorney General Ken Paxton for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, extending a cascade of legal and political wins for the once-embattled Republican leader.

In a court filing, lawyers with the bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline asked the Texas Supreme Court to dismiss the suit, citing the high court’s December decision to toss a separate state bar lawsuit against Paxton’s top aide, Brent Webster, for working with Paxton to challenge the 2020 outcome in battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden.

The state bar had sought to sanction Paxton, which could have carried a punishment ranging from a private reprimand to disbarment. Lawyers from the bar — which regulates law licenses in Texas — have argued that Paxton, in falsely claiming to have uncovered major evidence of election wrongdoing, forced the battleground states “to expend time, money, and resources to respond to the misrepresentations and false statements.”

The bar’s dismissal motion effectively ends a case that dates back to May 2022. It is Paxton’s second personal legal victory within the last year: In March, prosecutors dropped long-running felony securities fraud charges against Paxton under an agreement that required the attorney general to perform 100 hours of community service and take 15 hours of legal ethics courses. Paxton also agreed to pay around $271,000 in restitution to those he was accused of defrauding more than a decade ago when he allegedly solicited investors in a McKinney technology company without disclosing that the firm was paying him to promote its stock….

In its decision to dismiss the lawsuit against Webster last month, the Texas Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling by a Williamson County district judge who said that taking Webster’s law license would violate the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. In their motion to drop Paxton’s case, state bar lawyers acknowledged that their lawsuit against the attorney general “raises identical separation of powers issues” as those at issue in Webster’s case.

Share this:

“Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office taking over voter registration fraud investigation in Lancaster County”

chicanery, voter registration
WGAL: The Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office provided the following breakdown of ballots that were reviewed. Detectives from the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office reviewed 1,203 applications. Applications were provided by the Lancaster County Voter Registration Office. 367 applications were… Continue reading

“In blow to GOP, NC Supreme Court won’t fast-track lawsuit seeking to throw out 60,000 ballots” (Divided opinions suggest an ultimate possible 3-3 tie in this case)

judicial elections
Will Doran of WRAL: North Carolina’s Republican-majority state Supreme Court ruled partially against the Republican candidate seeking to join its ranks, rejecting his effort to fast-track a lawsuit seeking to throw out more than 60,000 people’s 2024 ballots. The case… Continue reading