Rick Pildes sends along this guest post: A number of us have been trying to work out the implications of the Court’s NAMUNDO decision for the next constitutional challenge to Section 5. I now want to address Armand Dernfer’s brief … Continue reading →

Rick Pildes sends along this guest post on NAMUDNO: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to avoid resolving the constitutionality of Section 5 for now, some confusion has emerged about legal questions concerning the next challenge. In particular, … Continue reading →

David Epstein sends along this guest post: Observers reacted to the NAMUDNO punt with a sigh of relief, but also as a bit of a missed opportunity: rather than have this case provide guidance for the next round of redistricting, … Continue reading →

Michael McDonald sends along this guest post: Like the cartoon Road Runner, the Supreme Court Justices nimbly stepped through a door they drew in thin air to sidestep the oncoming train that, if derailed, would have ended Section 5 of … Continue reading →

Here is a guest post from Nate Persily: In the immediate aftermath of the NAMUDNO decision, I shared the view espoused by many that this was a placeholder decision that urges Congress to act so that the Supreme Court won’t … Continue reading →

Rick Pildes has written this guest post: Rather than focusing on the Court’s opinion, I want to look forward to the future of voting rights. The Supreme Court’s decision gives Congress some breathing room, but the decision also puts Congress … Continue reading →

Here is a guest post from Sam Issacharoff: Since Rick brought my comment in the Times into the debate, let me take the opportunity to address some of the issues behind the Chief Justice’s statesmanship. To my mind, there are … Continue reading →

There’s been lots of armchair psychoanalysis of the Justices in Monday’s voting rights case. Heather Gerken says the liberals signed on to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion containing a lot of troubling language about the constitutionality of section 5 of the … Continue reading →

Here is a guest post from Guy Charles: It is time for the civil rights community to step up. They have dodged a bullet with the Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of section 5. But the constitutionality of section … Continue reading →

This guest post is written by Heather Gerken: NAMUDNO ended not with a bang, but a whimper. The Court unexpectedly issued a modest opinion on Section 5, neither affirming nor invalidating the provision. The ruling was a surprise, largely because … Continue reading →

Despite Chief Justice Roberts’ longstanding skepticism of the Voting Rights Act and his blistering set of questions to supporters of section 5’s constitutionality during oral argument, the Chief has managed to put together a coalition of 8 of 9 Justices … Continue reading →

Much has been made of Justice Kennedy’s comments at the NAMUDNO oral argument, leading supporters of Section 5 to expect the worst and prepare a legislative response. But the question has been raised about how much to read into comments … Continue reading →

Scott Rafferty wrote the following post on the election law listserv, which I reprint here with permission: Rick points to Gerry Hebert’s detailed analysis of the distinction between “facial” and “as-applied” challenges in NAMUNDO, arguing that the procedural abandonment of … Continue reading →

Here’s an admittedly crazy thought. When Congress was considering amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 2006, there were a number of proposals by academics to fix the Act. In my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I noted four … Continue reading →

My Slate commentary title posed a question that most observers now believe is most likely to be answered in the affirmative: a majority of the Court is likely to kill section 5 of the VRA, though some hold out hope … Continue reading →

Ellen Katz sends along the following guest post: Rick links to today’s NY Times article on NAMUDNO, and suggests that my views on the constitutionality of Section 5 have changed. Not so. In the piece, Adam Liptak quotes me to … Continue reading →

Here is a guest post from Ellen Katz: On April 29, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act remains constitutionally justified. The question has long been anticipated and many people, myself included, … Continue reading →

It is also interesting that he relies on racially polarized voting as a reason for the constitutionality of the renewed section 5. That point is not self-evident, though I think there are other good arguments for section 5’s continued constitutionality. … Continue reading →

Goldwater Institute (in support of appellants) I have also received the very important brief supporting no party of Persily, Stewart, and Ansolabehere. But it is too large to post. When it is posted elsewhere, I’ll link. … Continue reading →

The New York Times offers this editorial on NAMUDNO. … Continue reading →

The LA Times offers this editorial on NAMUDNO. … Continue reading →

We could know as early as this afternoon whether the Supreme Court will note probable jurisdiction and vote to hear the appeal in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, considering the question whether the renewed section 5 … Continue reading →

You can read it here. The government wants a summary affirmance. More at SCOTUSblog. … Continue reading →

Nate’s Yale Law Journal article on the renewed VRA is now available. Ellen Katz has written this commentary and Rick Pildes has written this commentary. These are all absolute must-reads. Rick P.’s piece really captures the exasperation I felt at … Continue reading →

The Hill offers this report on the NAMUDNO oral argument. A snippet: “A GOP source close to the reauthorization contended that some Section 5 opponents chose to vote in favor of the bill with the belief that it would be … Continue reading →