Follow BeltwayBlips on Twitter
"Initial Thoughts on NAMUDNO: Chief Justice Roberts Blinked."
How Appealing —
"Initial Thoughts on NAMUDNO: Chief Justice Roberts Blinked." At his "Election Law Blog," law professor Rick Hasen has a post that begins, "Despite Chief Justice Roberts' longstanding skepticism of the Voting Rights Act and his blistering set of questions to supporters of section 5's constitutionality during oral argument, the Chief has managed to put together a coalition of 8 of 9 Justices to put the question off for another day."
SCOTUS Upholds Voting Rights Act -- For Now, Anyway
Daily Kos —
... Prof. Rick Hasen has more analysis, including his note that "the key political point is that Section 5 will remain in place during the next round of redistricting, and it will be redistricting supervised by the Obama Administration's DOJ." [As you know from previous disclaimers, I'm trying to avoid saying too many critical things of the Court as long as I have a matter pending before it, and we'll know more about that next Monday.] ...
Supreme Court Lets Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Stand
Swing State Project —
... Leaving aside all the questions about how this ruling came about despite Roberts' apparent hostility to the VRA, or what its narrow technical nature means for future rulings on the same subject, Rick Hasen explains the political ramifications: ...
Supreme Court and NAMUDNO: Voting Rights Act Narrowed, But Survives
TalkLeft —
... as does Scotus Blog, which says: Perhaps one of the main ways to read the Court’s ruling, then, is that it it a warning to Congress that it needs to reconsider Section 5, and shore it up, if it can, with a new formula for coverage, and provide some assurance that it will no longer single out some states to bear Section 5’s obligations in ways that the Court suggested were now unequal. [More...] Law Prof Rick Hansen at his Election Law Blog has this analysis. He begins: Despite Chief Justice ...
Voting Rights Act: Section 5 Survives, For Now
Opinionator —
... argued the case and who is now entitled to be described as a mad genius) thought was particularly tenable because of prior Court opinions. Second, while the opinion contains some rather dark hints about Section 5’s future, those statements are countered by observations that supporters of the Act will plainly cite during the next go-round. Still, it’s hard to read this decision and think that Section 5 is going to have an easy time of it the next time it is challenged in this Court. “ Chief Justice Roberts blinked ,” writes Rick Hansen at Election Law blog. Despite Chief ...
Thinking about the Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act
Betsy's Page —
What does it mean that the Supreme Court declined to rule on the basic constitutionality of the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain jurisdictions to get preclearance of any change in their voting procedures? Some, like liberal election law specialist Rick Hasen , think that it means that the Supreme Court blinked and stepped back from a 5:4 decision to strike down such a momentous law. ...
'Daily Voting News' for June 23, 2009
The BRAD BLOG —
... stress importance of voting http://www.uuworld.org/n...ws/articles/143299.shtml
National: NAMUDNO v Holder – The Opinion of the Court http://www.law.cornell.e...upct/html/08-322.ZO.html
National: Quelle Surprise! The Unexpected Ruling that Saves Section 5 http://blogs.wsj.com/law...ng-that-saves-section-5/
National: Initial Thoughts on NAMUDNO: Chief Justice Roberts Blinked http://electionlawblog.org/archives/013903.html
National: ...
