See here. It begins:
- Yesterday, Rick Hasen published an appeal for “serious discussion” in Congress, so far avoided, on changes that might improve the Voting Rights Act prospects for constitutional survival. He also released answers to questions put to him for written response by three Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee, and here, too, Hasen expresses the view that “there is much that Congress can do to increase the chances that the Supreme Court will uphold a reauthorized VRA under the Boerne [City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (l997)] standard.” Whether this discussion is possible is certainly the most open of questions. See here. Even if there were such a discussion, it is not obvious that it could be as serious–and thus as useful–as Hasen and others would hope.
Bob concludes:
- So now it behooves the John Cornyns of this world, unfriendly to the VRA, to publicly agonize over its constitutional infirmities and to inquire anxiously into possible remedies for them. Cornyn insists on “Congress’ obligation to pass [VRA] legislation that will survive Supreme Court scrutiny.” (emphasis added). Of course, in other contexts, this is not an “obligation”–that of anticipating Supreme Court judgment–that Congress has seriously articulated or bothered, even, to discharge, and for the most part, wisely so. Nor could it ever meet this test–the test of acting to “ensure” (also Cornyn’s word) successful Constitutional review. Yet Cornyn is a man now concerned with “congruence and proportionality” and unprepared to act on VRA renewal, in its proposed form, without the necessary assurances, which he knows full well cannot be provided. This is not the level of “serious discussion” that Rick Hasen is hoping for, but it is all that he or others sharing his hope should reasonably expect.