Guinier and Blacksher Compare Shelby Decision to Dred Scott

James Blacksher, a practicing voting rights attorney in Alabama and Harvard Law professor and former DOJ Special Asst. to the AAG. for the Civil Rights Division, Lani Guinier write this article titled "Free at Last: Rejecting Equal Sovereignty and Restoring the Constitutional Right To Vote. Shelby County v. Holder." In it they question the Supreme Court's use of the Equal Sovereignty principle as a central tenant in its ruling that invalidated the mechanism for which section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is implemented. "Shelby County is the first decision since Dred Scott to invoke the doctrine of equal sovereignty where…
Read More
Congress Makes First Attempt at Voting Rights Act Amendment

Congress Makes First Attempt at Voting Rights Act Amendment

Photo: David Sachs Last week U.S. Rep Jim Sensenbrenner   introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (VRAA); a bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in an effort to revive the statutes’ powerful preclearance provisions that had allowed direct federal oversight of several states and local jurisdictions’ election-related activities. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the coverage formula in section 4 of the Act that had determined which jurisdictions would be obliged to seek preclearance or approval of all voting procedure changes. With the Supreme Court leaving the preclearance regime hobbled, thousands of election and voting…
Read More

Justice Dept. Forced to “Drop the Ball” in Some Local Election Controversies

Before June 25, the Justice Dept. had many balls in the air as it negotiated hundreds of preclearance submissions from local jurisdictions covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These entities seek approval for any and all election changes; from redistricting maps of council districts to polling place changes. The Supreme Court changed all of that when it invalidated the coverage formula for section 5, effectively dropping all of those balls the Justice Dept. had in the air. The resulting mess from the sudden halt of an extensive administrative reporting system is bound to have some unforeseen outcomes.…
Read More

Arizona Redistricting Trial Focuses on Elusive Proof of Partisan Bias

Paranoia is inherent in redistricting, even when it’s nonpartisan redistricting. A Republican backed legal challenge against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s state legislative map went to trial last week and paranoia tainted every aspect of the case. The Republican plaintiffs pointed to overpopulated GOP districts versus under-populated Democratic districts as a sign that indeed the commission’s tie-breaking, independent chairwoman was actually a Democratic sympathizer, allowing Democrats on the panel to push through map scenarios favorable to their party.   They claim she never disclosed contributions to a Democratic candidate or her husband’s role as a Democratic strategist. The commission on…
Read More