Friday round-up

Last June, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which contained the formula used to identify the states and local governments which are required to comply with the Act’s preapproval requirement.  Yesterday members of Congress introduced a bill in response to that ruling; among other things, the bill ties coverage under the preapproval requirement to recent voting rights violations.  Emma Dumain reports on the bill and the press conference at which it was introduced for Roll CallAt his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen analyzes the bill and concludes that, “if this were the bill introduced in 2006 to amend the VRA, it would not only have passed both Houses of Congress and become law, the Supreme Court would have been very likely to uphold the measure as constitutional despite its constitutional problems.”  Having said that, however, he also is “pessimistic that with the general dysfunction of Congress in particular and antagonism over singling out certain states now, the Act will pass out of Congress.”

Briefly:

[Disclosure:  Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Bauman.  However, the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in: Round-up

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY