Yesterday’s coverage of the Court included Mark Sherman’s interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Associated Press. Ginsburg addressed (among other things) the Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down as unconstitutional the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which had previously been the basis for Texas’s obligation to get preapproval for any changes to election laws or procedures there, and she observed that “one really could have predicted” that states which had previously been covered by the preapproval requirement might now put tougher voter identification laws into effect. Rick Hasen discusses Ginsburg’s remarks at his Election Law Blog.
As Lyle reported yesterday, in the wake of the Court’s decision in Shelby County, the federal government has asked a special three-judge district court in Texas to “bail in” that state – that is, to require it to comply with the preapproval requirement going forward. At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses the significance of this development, which he characterizes as “a big deal on a few fronts. It means that DOJ is going to move aggressively to try to restore what it can of the preclearance regime,” and he suggests that “[i] f the three-judge court goes along, the issue could well end up back before the Supreme Court, perhaps even this coming term, to possibly kill what remains of preclearance.”
Briefly:
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of the respondents in Shelby County; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of Edith Windsor in Windsor.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY