Monthly Archives: March 2010

“Law prof asks judge to halt Columbia election”

The State (South Carolina) offers this report, which begins: ” A retired USC law school professor is asking a federal judge to halt the April 6 Columbia City Council District 2 election. Katharine Butler said the City Council’s decision to replace former District 2 Councilman E.W. Cromartie in an election held April 6 changed the city’s election procedures without first getting preclearance from the United States Justice Department, which is in violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”

Share this:

“An Uncertain Future for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: The Need for a Revised Bailout System”

Christopher Seaman has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, St. Louis U. L. Rev.). Here is the abstract:

    In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (“NAMUDNO”), 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), the Supreme Court declined to decide one of last Term’s most prominent issues: the constitutionality of the 2006 renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Court adopted an unexpected statutory construction permitting the plaintiff to seek an exemption called “bailout” from continued coverage under this provision. But even though the Court avoided directly ruling on its constitutionality, NAMUDNO left little doubt that Section 5 remains on shaky constitutional ground.
    A revised bailout system is likely the best approach for placing Section 5 on a more solid footing. To date, however, bailout has been little used; despite predictions made during the previous renewal of Section 5 in 1982, only a handful of the thousands of covered jurisdictions have sought and successfully obtained bailout. This paper suggests that Congress should adopt two major changes to the existing bailout system. First, Congress should implement an “automatic” bailout that would unilaterally remove from coverage all jurisdictions that have not violated the major provisions of the Voting Rights Act since the 1982 renewal. Second, the current requirements for obtaining bailout – which this paper calls “optional” bailout – should be revised to make it easier for jurisdictions to determine whether they are eligible. Adopting these changes will more narrowly tailor Section 5 to apply to jurisdictions with a recent history of discrimination in voting, and thus make it more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny the next time the issue is before the Court.

Share this: