The Voting Rights Act of 2015

James F. Sensenbrenner, (R-Wisconsin 5th District) introduced the Voting Rights Act of 2015 as a response to the 2013, Supreme Court Shelby County v. Holder decision that said while preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on a decades-old formula.

When the justices handed down the ruling, nine states, mostly in the Deep South, as well as parts of six other states, had to preclear their voting changes with the government. His bill would modernize the act so that the preclearance rules applied equally to every state in the country.

Under the bill, a state or jurisdiction could be subject to preclearance if a court ruled that it had discriminated against voters on the basis of race five or more times in the most recent 15 years. States that stopped discriminating automatically would fall out of the bill’s protections; states that started discriminating would fall in.

In this way, the bill responds to the Supreme Court’s concerns about the dated formula and resurrects the protections of the law that have been a part of American elections for five decades. The bill also includes important transparency provisions. One of the most effective ways to suppress voting is to change the rules. The proposed Voting Rights Act would require officials to give public notice within 48 hours of certain voting changes that are made 180 days before a Federal election. Local governments may have valid reasons to change polling locations or the resources they spend on an election, but the public should be well informed about them before Election Day.

His Voting Rights Act of 2015, which has more than 100 co-sponsors, 13 of them Republicans, has been introduced in the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it awaits action. Some of his colleagues view the bill as unnecessary because of the progress we have made against voter discrimination. The bill’s structure, however, ensures that preclearance will apply only if in fact discrimination occurs.

Ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot without fear, deterrence and prejudice is a basic American right. He said "I would rather lose my job than suppress votes to keep it".

The Voting Rights Act not only stops discrimination but also strengthens the public’s faith that votes will be counted and elections remain fair.

The 2016 primary season has been marred by hateful rhetoric and ugly politics. Passing the Voting Rights Act of 2015 would be Congress’s most enlightened response.

I have a better solution:

1. When the Census is done, put all states on preclearance.

2. Each state has 90 days to file their prior 10 years of voting records.

3. Some states will be taken off and some will stay on.

4. Redistricting will start after this process is completed.

5. Those states that stay on will still have the ability after five years to ask to be removed from preclearance.

6. The voters still can file complaints for those states that were taken off of preclearance, if they change voting laws that adversely affects the voters.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Congress Starts Discussion On New Preclearance Rules

My take on the Hill reporting on the prospect that Congress might create new rules for Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  The old Section 4 was suspended by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, 2013.  According to the article, there is support among some Democrats and Republicans for a bill to enact new rules for Section 4, the Preclearance rules.

Section 4 was the part of the Act that determined which parts of the nation are subject to Section 5, the Preclearance requirement.  The original act, passed in 1965, said certain parts of the country that had a bad record on voting rights must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election laws.  Section 5 is still intact, but it has no practical usefulness if there is no rules on which parts of the country should be included in Section 5.

Both chambers are working behind the scenes to draft legislation to re-install the Voting Rights Act protections.  But in a sign of the delicate nature of the topic, Senate Democrats are taking care not to rush ahead of the House, for fear of sinking the bill's chances in the GOP-controlled lower chamber.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is working with House Democrats and a small contingent of House Republicans, notably former Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner(Wis.), who championed the 2006 Voting Rights Act re-authorization, in an effort to defuse the partisan politics surrounding the thorny issue and forge a bill that has the best chance of becoming law.

Leahy said he'd hoped a July hearing on the Voting Rights Act, which featured testimony from Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) the civil rights hero, would have propelled the debate and made the case for bipartisan support of a fix.

But the August recess, the arrival of the Syria crisis and the fight over the government shutdown have all intervened to slow the process, and the negotiators have yet to produce even a draft bill.

Sensenbrenner has been vocally supporting a legislative response to the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision, which found that the decades-old formula dictating which states must get federal approval to change election laws is outdated and therefore unconstitutional.

But he could have a powerful ally in House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has signaled support for a response to the high court's ruling.  Before the August recess, Cantor had met one-on-one with Lewis to discuss the subject, and Lewis said afterwards that the Virginia Republican is "by all means" supportive of a legislative fix.  Cantor continues to meet with members of both parties in the hopes of finding a positive path forward regarding the Voting Rights Act.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and one of the leaders in the effort to rewrite the Voting Rights Act, suggested last week that a draft bill will be finalized near mid-November.  Pushing the debate to next year, Scott warned, risks entangling the debate in the tough politics of the mid-terms.

My solution is to make the Preclearance issue part of the Census and take it out of Congressional hands.  The test rules should also always include any new schemes that would put barriers to eligible voters from exercising their voice.

Every ten years all states are "Bailed-In", and they have 90 days to submit their prior 10 years voting records.  Those states that prove they have complied would then be able to "Bail-Out".  This should be done before redistricting begins.

In the meantime, we could institute this Jan. 2014 before the mid-term election process begins.

What do you think of this idea?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NC Prepares Voter ID Laws After Section 4 Repeal

North Carolina is moving forward with a host of bills to roll back voting rights.

Republican lawmakers are accelerating a new agenda to eliminate early voting, Sunday voting hours, and same-day registration provisions. GOP leaders also vowed to move quickly to pass a controversial voter ID law that would make it much harder for minorities, seniors, students, and low-income voters to cast their ballots.

North Carolina’s new voting rights law has three main prongs:

1. Require ID at the polls. North Carolina’s voter ID bill could pose problems for 1 in 10 voters, according to an analysis by the State Board of Elections. About 613,000 North Carolinians lack the required government-issued ID. Nearly a third of these voters are black, while over half are registered Democrats.

2. Penalize college students for voting. Republicans are pushing a bill to raise taxes on families with college students who choose to vote at school rather than at home, effectively discouraging college students from voting.

3. End early voting and same-day registration.

The Republican-dominated legislature and new Republican governor will likely do all they can to speed along these restrictions. However, polls show that North Carolinians overwhelmingly oppose these new voter suppression measures. “Moral Monday” protests are cropping up all over the state to challenge these bills and a slew of other draconian policies targeting the poor, women, minorities, and seniors.

The question now is who will file the Section 2 objections with the Justice Department?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Hanover VA Bailouts of Preclearance

The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with Hanover County, Va., that will allow for the county, a covered jurisdiction under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to bail out from coverage under these provisions.

Bailout will exempt Hanover County, along with the town of Ashland, from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court.

“In the department’s view, the county has met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the county as well as information gathered during the Department’s independent investigation,” said Matthew Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate the county’s cooperation in the resolution of this matter.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Falls Church VA Bails Out of Preclearence

The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with the city of Falls Church, Va., that will allow for the city, a covered jurisdiction under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to bail out from coverage under these provisions. Bailout will exempt the city of Falls Church, along with the Falls Church City Public School District, from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court.

The city of Falls Church filed its bailout action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 15, 2013. Counsel for the city contacted the Attorney General prior to filing the action, indicating that the city was interested in seeking bailout. The city provided the Justice Department with substantial information, and the department conducted an investigation to determine the city’s eligibility. Based on that investigation, the department is satisfied that the city of Falls Church meets the Voting Rights Act’s requirements for bailout.

“In the department’s view, the city of Falls Church has met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the city and information gathered during the Department’s independent investigation,” said Matthew Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate the city’s cooperation in the resolution of this matter.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NAN Largest Convention in the History of the Organization

I attended the 15th Annual National Convention of Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN). It took place, April 3-6 in New York City, at the Sheraton Hotel.

It was the largest attended NAN annual national convention and included delegates from over sixty NAN chapters across the United States.

There was a forum on Gun Control, Gun Violence: Addressing the Real Reform, and both the family of Hadiyah Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was fatally shot a week after performing with her high school band at the Inauguration of President Barack Obama, and the family of Trayvon Martin were in attendance. NAN delegates were asked to put pressure on their Senators to vote on stronger Gun legislation that could come up for debate in the Senate this week.

Several officials from the Obama Administration attended in Special Plenary Presentations: Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Regina M. Benjamin, Surgeon General of the United States, Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

Others spoke at ticketed events: Leading members of Congress and activists such as Martin Luther King, III, National Urban League President Marc Morial, NAACP President Ben Jealous, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice President Kerry Kennedy.

The convention concluded with a major announcement by Rev. Al Sharpton, founder and President of NAN, regarding action plans formulated during the convention.

NAN will start an “Alert Watch” since the Supreme Court is deciding on Affirmative Action and Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act. NAN has issued an alert that will go into action in the event that the Supreme Court overturns either of the these policies. NAN will mobilize activists to urge Congressional action and to put pressure on the academic and corporate community if Affirmative Action is lost.

Other highlights of the national convention included the Measuring the Movement forum on the final day that brought together three generations of civil rights leaders to discuss strategies on what can be done to sustain civil rights and the social justice movement regardless of what the court’s decisions may be. The forum featured civil rights leaders and a review by some of the legends of the civil rights movement regarding the progress made and mistakes made in the fifty years since the “March in Washington.” The Forum included civil rights icons Rev. Joseph Lowery, Juanita Abernathy, Otis Moss, Jr., and Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr., among others.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Protecting Our Vote During the Midterm Elections

I just attended a Political Panel called "Protecting Our Vote During the Midterm Elections" at the 15th Annual National Convention of Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN). It is taking place this week in New York City at the Sheraton Hotel.

First, some history about NAN.

NAN was founded in New York City in 1991, as a social justice, social policy, activist organization born of America's historic civil rights struggle. NAN is in the forefront of challenging today's threats to equal treatment under the law, whether it is police abuse, misconduct or racial profiling, economic injustice such as a lack of access to capital and opportunity; or social policy injustice such as education equality, voting rights, immigration reform, gender equality, marriage equality, gun control, health care, housing or worker's rights.

Reverend Al Sharpton is NAN's founding president and has led the organization for 22 years. He is a noted civil rights leader, host of MSNBC's Political Nation, and hosts a weekly radio broadcast on Saturday from NAN's national headquarters in central Harlem. NAN has grown to over 50 chapters across America and maintains offices in Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Atlanta, Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; Las Vegas, Nevada; Los Angeles, California and Miami, Florida. NAN's website is at: www.nationalactionnetwork.net.

Last year, during the national election cycle, NAN took the lead in pushing back the real threat to voting rights by exposing the efforts of many states to suppress the vote of primarily poor, elderly and minority voters through restrictive Voter ID laws. NAN's work was hugely successful as demonstrated by the unprecedented turnout of voters and their refusal to be intimidated or turned away from the polls.

The panel's moderator was Reverend Al Sharpton.

The panel members were:

Barbara R. Arnwine - President and Executive Director, The Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Nicole Austin-Hillery - Director and Counsel, The Brennan Center for Justice
Bishop Victor T. Curry - President, NAN, Miami-Dade County, Florida Chapter, Pastor, New Birth Baptist Church, Miami, Florida
Patrick Gaspard - Executive Director, Democratic National Committee
Bishop Bobby Hilton - President, NAN Cincinnati, OH Chapter
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus, 113th Congress
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries - Congressman, 8th District of NY
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks - Congressman, 5th District of NY
Laura Murphy - Director, Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union
Rep. Charles B. Rangel - Congressman, 13th District of NY
Rep. Alicia Reece - State Rep., 33rd House District of Ohio
Rep. Joseph Crowley - Congressman, 14th District of NY

During the first round the panel talked about these issues: Voter ID Laws, Reduced Early Voting and Church Sunday Voting, Reduced Polling Places, Forced Provisional Ballots that are Not Counted, and Misinformation Tactics. The other issue was the Supreme Court June decisions about the Voting Rights Act Law and Section 5 Preclearance.

Then each panel member gave their ideas for the upcoming 2013 and 2014 elections and called this the "New Civil Rights Movement".

Some of the ideas were:

- Calling out corporations that are using shareholder's money to fund organizations that are responsible for the above tactics, using the term "There has to be consequences".

- Get involved in local Judge elections since they will be deciding some of these issues.

- This is a national issue, but now it is more important to get involved locally in a state by state fight.

There will be work to create a state by state agenda to first decide how to fight current situations and also preempt new ones. The Brenner Center had a three part program: reform the election system, increase early voting, and create national standards for each part of the election process.

The Justice Department has been preparing their ideas about changing our voting system. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez spoke at the George Washington University Law School Symposium on Friday, November 16, 2012. He discussed the Civil Rights Division’s work to protect the fundamental civil right that is the lifeblood of our democracy: the right to vote.

Some of the changes addressed what we can do both to protect the right to vote, and to improve the voting process:

1. Ensure that every eligible person entering a social service office can register to vote.

2. It should be the government’s responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote, by compiling, from databases that already exist, a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction. Of course, these lists would be used solely to administer elections and would protect essential privacy rights.

3. Election officials should work together to establish a program of permanent, portable registration – so that voters who move can vote at their new polling place on Election Day. Until that happens, we should implement fail-safe procedures to correct voter-roll errors and omissions, by allowing every voter to cast a regular, non-provisional ballot on Election Day. Several states have already taken this step.

4. Same-day registration is a reform we should be considering seriously – it would both facilitate election administration and promote electoral participation. For the 2012 election, eight states plus the District of Columbia had same-day registration in place. (Two more states have recently enacted it and will implement it next year – California, and Connecticut.) And we know that it increases participation: in both the 2008 and 2010 general elections, each of the eight states with same-day registration had higher turnout of the voting-eligible population than the national average. In fact, for the 2008 presidential election, five of the six states with the highest turnout in the country were states with same-day registration. Preliminary turnout estimates for the 2012 election show that this pattern will likely continue.

5. Voter fraud is not acceptable. But we also need to reform deceptive election practices and dishonest efforts to prevent certain voters from casting their ballots. Over the years, we’ve seen all sorts of attempts to gain partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls – from literacy tests and poll taxes, to misinformation campaigns telling people that Election Day has been moved, or that only one adult per household can cast a ballot. Senators Schumer and Cardin recently introduced legislation that would deter and punish such harmful practices. This bill has sparked and helped to advance a critically important dialogue across – and beyond – Capitol Hill.

6. Provisional ballots - In some states and elections, large segments of the electorate are required to cast a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot on election day, for any of a number of reasons. The Justice Department will be considering whether we need to propose concrete solutions, such as national standards for counting provisional ballots for federal elections, to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by moves close to an election, by appearing in the wrong polling place or precinct, or by poll worker errors.

7. It’s time to rethink our largely partisan system of state and local election administration. We risk leaving our election processes open to partisan mischief – or to the perception of such mischief. We should have a serious conversation about solutions to this risk, including developing an entirely professionalized and non-partisan system for administering our elections.

What are your ideas about changing the election process?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Another Opinion on Shelby County v. Holder

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the constitutionality of two key sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (docket 12-96). Shelby County urged the Court to strike down those provisions and was argued by Bert W. Rein of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Wiley Rein LLP. Dividing time in defense of the law was the U.S. Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Debo P. Adegbile, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in New York City, representing individual voters and other private defenders of the law.

I just listened to the oral arguments, CLICK HERE to listen on C-SPAN.

During the session, the question of making all of the states part of Section 5 (preclearance) was asked a few times. So here is my answer.

Every ten years we have the Census, and then perform redistricting. We should also use this process to do a preclearance test for all the states. We basically do an opt-in and then evaluate the last ten years and bailout those states that pass.

States and districts could still ask for a bailout during the 10 year window using the following criteria:

Section 4 provides that a jurisdiction may terminate or "bailout" from coverage under the Act's special provisions. The amendment, which took effect on August 5, 1984, establishes an "objective" measure to determine whether the jurisdiction is entitled to "bailout".

A jurisdiction seeking to "bailout" must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:

•No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination

•All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation

•No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court

•There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination

•There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice

•There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination

•Federal examiners have not been assigned

•There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated

• The jurisdiction must have eliminated those voting procedures and methods of elections that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. It also must demonstrate that it has made constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register and vote and expand opportunities for voter participation, such as opportunities for registration and voting, and to appoint minority officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all levels of the stages of the electoral process. The jurisdiction must also present evidence of minority electoral participation.

• These requirements apply to all governmental units within the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction. Thus, if a county is seeking to "bailout", it must establish each criteria for every city, town, school district, or other entity within its boundaries.

The Attorney General is also authorized to consent to an entry of judgment granting the "bailout" if the Attorney General concludes after investigation that the jurisdiction has complied with all of these requirements.

Prior to actually filing a petition with the District of Columbia court, any jurisdiction interested in seeking "bailout" may submit a request to the Attorney General with supporting documentation and evidence. Upon receipt, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division will undertake an investigation to determine whether the Attorney General would be willing to enter into a consent decree or would oppose the "bailout" petition. If the Attorney General determines that consent to an entry of judgment is proper, the Voting Section will work with the jurisdiction to agree on the terms of the consent decree to be filed with the "bailout" petition when the litigation is actually filed.

During the arguments some of the Justices' used the fact that some northeast states had worse minority registration then the south. But that misses the entire problem. I might be registered but it is the ability to vote that also must be protected.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Justice Department at the George Washington University Law School Symposium

Assistant Attorney General Perez spoke at the George Washington University Law School Symposium on Friday, November 16, 2012. He discussed the Civil Rights Division’s work to protect the fundamental civil right that is the lifeblood of our democracy: the right to vote.

Some of the changes addressed what we can do both to protect the right to vote, and to improve the voting process:

1. Ensure that every eligible person entering a social service office can register to vote.

2. It should be the government’s responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote, by compiling, from databases that already exist, a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction. Of course, these lists would be used solely to administer elections and would protect essential privacy rights.

3. Election officials should work together to establish a program of permanent, portable registration – so that voters who move can vote at their new polling place on Election Day. Until that happens, we should implement fail-safe procedures to correct voter-roll errors and omissions, by allowing every voter to cast a regular, non-provisional ballot on Election Day. Several states have already taken this step.

4. Same-day registration is a reform we should be considering seriously – it would both facilitate election administration and promote electoral participation. For the 2012 election, eight states plus the District of Columbia had same-day registration in place. (Two more states have recently enacted it and will implement it next year – California, and Connecticut.) And we know that it increases participation: in both the 2008 and 2010 general elections, each of the eight states with same-day registration had higher turnout of the voting-eligible population than the national average. In fact, for the 2008 presidential election, five of the six states with the highest turnout in the country were states with same-day registration. Preliminary turnout estimates for the 2012 election show that this pattern will likely continue.

5. Voter fraud is not acceptable. But we also need to reform deceptive election practices and dishonest efforts to prevent certain voters from casting their ballots. Over the years, we’ve seen all sorts of attempts to gain partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls – from literacy tests and poll taxes, to misinformation campaigns telling people that Election Day has been moved, or that only one adult per household can cast a ballot. Senators Schumer and Cardin recently introduced legislation that would deter and punish such harmful practices. This bill has sparked and helped to advance a critically important dialogue across – and beyond – Capitol Hill.

6. Provisional ballots - In some states and elections, large segments of the electorate are required to cast a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot on election day, for any of a number of reasons. The Justice Department will be considering whether we need to propose concrete solutions, such as national standards for counting provisional ballots for federal elections, to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by moves close to an election, by appearing in the wrong polling place or precinct, or by poll worker errors.

7. It’s time to rethink our largely partisan system of state and local election administration. We risk leaving our election processes open to partisan mischief – or to the perception of such mischief. We should have a serious conversation about solutions to this risk, including developing an entirely professionalized and non-partisan system for administering our elections.

The Supreme Court agreed last week to hear a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act this term, in the lawsuit filed by Shelby County, Alabama. The Justice Department is looking forward to demonstrating to the Court both that the statute is still constitutional and still has critically-important work to do. Section 5 is a linchpin of the Voting Rights Act, and is directed at specific areas where discrimination historically was deeply rooted. Under that important provision, certain “covered jurisdictions” are prevented from altering their voting practices until it can be determined that any proposed changes would have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. This process, known as “preclearance,” has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades. And it has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support – including in its most recent re-authorization, when President Bush and an overwhelming and bipartisan Congressional majority came together in 2006 to renew the Act’s key provisions and extend it until 2031.

The reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common – and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history. In just the past few months we’ve seen numerous vivid examples of the continuing salience of the VRA.

Section 5 continues to play an important prophylactic role, encouraging non-discriminatory voting practices at the outset. In many of the Section 5 covered states, for example, the statewide redistricting process following the release of the decennial census data in this cycle began with a decision to identify the existing ability-to-elect districts, and to protect the ability of minority voters to elect their candidates of choice in those districts. And at the more local level, one county in Texas recently withdrew a preclearance submission involving polling place changes after DOJ requested more information on the reasons for the change. The County planned to move the polling place from a school to a private club. The school had been agreed upon in earlier litigation as a compromise polling place location within the county, while the club had been a historically segregated organization. In our request for more information, we explained that our investigation had identified concerns that the use of the proposed polling place could discourage minority voters from turning out to vote. The County withdrew the submission after that request. As Congress recognized in 2006, and as the D.C. Circuit recently agreed, these kinds of examples are further evidence that Section 5 promotes compliance by covered jurisdictions.

At the same time, the statute has very effectively been used to allow covered jurisdictions to “bail out” when they demonstrate a history of compliance. Our bailout work has increased dramatically since the Supreme Court’s decision in Northwest Austin. Since the current bailout provision became effective in 1984, bailout has been granted in 36 cases. Fully half of those bailouts have been granted since the Supreme Court’s decision in Northwest Austin. Several more cases are pending now, including a bailout lawsuit filed by the State of New Hampshire. The effectiveness of the bailout mechanism further demonstrates that Section 5 is proportionate to the harms it is aimed at eliminating. In short, Section 5 continues to be necessary, and our bailout work illustrates that it is not over-inclusive.

The Department of Justice will continue, whether through enforcement and litigation, or through legislation and policy measures to expand the democratic process to all eligible participants.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Counties in VA Bail Out of VRA's Section 5

The Justice Department announced that it has reached agreements with Carroll County and Craig County, Va., that will allow the counties and their political subdivisions to bail out from their status as “covered jurisdictions” under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and thereby exempt these jurisdictions from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, certain covered jurisdictions, determined according to Section 4 of the act, are required to seek preclearance for any changes in voting qualifications, standards, practices or procedures from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia or from the U.S. Attorney General, prior to their implementation. Section 4 of the act provides that a covered jurisdiction may seek to “bail out,” or remove itself from such coverage, and therefore be exempted from the preclearance requirements, by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A bailout judgment can be issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions. The act also provides that the attorney general can consent to entry of a judgment of bailout only if, based upon investigation, the attorney general is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility requirements.

Carroll County and Craig County filed these bailout actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 17, 2012, and July 18, 2012, respectively. Counsel for both counties contacted the attorney general prior to filing the action, indicating that the counties were interested in seeking a bailout. Both counties provided the Justice Department with substantial information, and the department conducted an investigation to determine their eligibility. Based on that investigation, the department is satisfied that both Carroll and Craig counties meet the Voting Rights Act’s requirements for bailout. “In the department’s view, Carroll County and Craig County have met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the counties and gathered during the department’s independent investigation,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “I commend the counties on their cooperation to ensure resolution of this matter.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us