US Supreme Court Addresses NonPartisan Redistricting

GDaniels Civil Rights, Voting Rights ,

On March 2, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) heard arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.   The USSC considered the power of the people versus the power of the legislature. You can find an analysis of today’s argument here.   Arizona state legislators were not happy with the redistricting map that the Independent Commission drafted and implemented in 2012.  The Court’s decision could have widespread implications on redistrictings across the country.  In places like California, where an Independent Commission has successfully drawn and redrawn congressional and state legislative districts in a nonpartisan manner, the Court’s decision could cause a ripple effect that mandates re-redistricting.  If the Arizona legislature gets its way, only elected officials, not nonpartisan citizens, will have the ability to draw the lines to get themselves reelected and continue the widespread polarization that currently exists.

Restoring the Right to Vote

GDaniels Civil Rights, Voting Rights , , , ,

Recently, Virginia and Kentucky took up the issue of restoring the right to vote to persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, with different results.  In VA, the state house voted down a resolution that would allow for automatic restoration.  In KY, state house members will need a super majority after public approval to provide restorative measures to nonviolent felons.  The paradox of outcomes demonstrate that the road to restoration can be extremely difficult for the more than 5 million persons who have lost the right to vote because of former convictions.

Restore Section 4

GDaniels Uncategorized

In Shelby County, AL v. Holder, the Supreme Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. Section 4 included the coverage formula for Section 5 of the Act which required certain jurisdictions to seek approval of any and all voting changes prior to implementation from the United States Attorney General or a federal trial court in Washington, DC. The court held that the coverage formula was unconstitutional, which essentially means that jurisdictions do not have to submit voting changes.

The Supreme Court’s opinion effectively put Section 5 on life support. While it did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5, finding that Section 4 was unconstitutional means that no previously covered jurisdictions are mandated to submit changes. Those jurisdictions can now implement changes without federal oversight. Within hours of the Shelby decision, many of them did.

While entire states were covered, so were the counties, cities, school boards and other elected bodies therein. Changes made to those bodies were also required to seek federal approval before implementation. Unless Congress acts, these jurisdictions can implement changes without federal authorization.

What’s Next?

You have the right to vote. The Supreme Court cannot issue an opinion that takes away the right to vote. It is protected in the United States constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment provides that the state cannot deny a citizen the right to vote based on race or color. More constitutional amendments have been added that address the right to vote, for example, changing the age of eligibility and expressly adding women, than any other right. The right to vote is safe.

  • Unless Congress devises a new formula for coverage (I’ll have another post on what that formula should include), then Section 5 is dead. Only Congress has the power to resuscitate.

 

  • As concerned citizens, we must demand that Congress act. State and local legislatures are making it harder to vote and Section 5 protection is desperately needed.

 

 

New Report Analyzes Experiences of Minority Voters in 2012 Election

GDaniels Uncategorized

BLOG.GILDADANIELS.COM: New Report Analyzes Experiences of Minority Voters in 2012 Election

For the first time, a new report released today by Advancement Project and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, comprehensively analyzes the experience of voters of color in the 2012 election.Entitled Lining Up: Ensuring Equal Access to the Right to Vote and authored by University of Baltimore School of Law professor Gilda R. Daniels, the report highlights the extensive efforts of the two civil rights organizations, from the courtroom to the streets, to combat restrictive voter ID laws, challenges at the polls, deception and intimidation, “show-me-your-papers” proof-of-citizenship practices, unacceptably long lines, and the troubling use of provisional ballots.