Now it gets interesting.  The Florida Governor is being sued for not submitting an amendment for preclearance that was approved by Florida voters in November pertaining to redistricting. 

Former state Sen. Dan Gelber, attorney for the amendment backers, said the Voting Rights Act requires that election changes be submitted for approval “as soon as possible after they become final.”

Actually, this is wrong.  The federal law says no such thing.  Here is the law:

SEC. 5. Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, [p*343] or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

At PJ Tatler, or,

Why the Black Panther Case Matters.

Judge orders ballot boxes busted open.  More here.

The court has ordered that three ballot boxes be re-opened and re-counted tomorrow.  Entire trial is being broadcast on the internet each day at www.house.state.tx.us under the “audio” tab.  Trial continues tomorrow with closing arguments set for Monday.

Video news report here.

Another article  telegraphing that democrats will be relying on DOJ Section 5 reviews to protect democratic seats in redistricting.

Yet another reason states should go straight to U.S. District Court to have their plans approved and by pass the longer, less transparent DOJ preclearance process.

It seems he thinks voter id “is a solution in search of  a problem.”   Someone deserves credit for writing some very fine talking points.

AL.com has a summary, a brief one.  Bert Rein personally made the argument. 

Texas – a solution in search of a problem.

Wisconsin.

South Carolina.

Iowa.

Contra, Texas.

In Wisconsin.

Fredericksburg, Virginia appears to be seeking a bailout from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Free Lance Star article mentions a curious component to any bailout being discussed, namely that the bailout would impose post-bailout obligations on Fredericksburg. 

“Last night, several city residents asked for more involvement in the exemption process. Specifically, they wanted input in the written agreement that would eventually govern such an exemption, if it is granted.  Hebert explained that the agreement could be written to set up a process by which minorities would still be kept informed of future voting changes–things like precinct locations and registration hours–even though the federal government wouldn’t have to clear each change.”

This sort of provision has been used in previous bailouts and I will have an upcoming article on the questionable practice.  Simply, either a bailout happens, or it doesn’t.  Jurisdictions should not be saddled with ongoing reporting obligations that act as pseudo-Section 5 obligations.  The Supreme Court should be fully informed of this practice if it takes hold because it mitigates against the effectiveness of the bailouts.  You can’t call a 95% bailout a 100% bailout, or at least can’t pretend to the Supreme Court it is a 100% bailout.  A survey of Virginia jurisdictions is underway to ascertain which are seeking bailouts and whether any proposed agreements include provisions beyond the contours of the bailout statute.  

Jurisdictions should not go through the time and trouble to obtain a bailout and agree to the imposition of ongoing pseudo-preclearance obligations that the law does not require in the bailout statute.  To do otherwise fails to protect the interests of the jurisdiction.  It also creates a false impression to the Supreme Court in the forthcoming challenges to Section 5 that jurisdictions have obtained true bailouts, when they have agreed to provisions not in the statute.  Instead, jurisdictions like Fredericksburg should seek a bailout, period.  If they feel compelled to set up a notification system to alert the minority community about changes, then do so, but don’t include it as part of an agreement in a bailout decree when there is no obligation in the statute whatsoever to do so.    But neither Fredericksburg, nor any jurisdiction, should agree to a decree that includes provisions beyond what the law requires for a bailout.  Hopefully the Mayor and City Council will recognize that bailouts can be obtained without agreeing to extra-legal terms in the decree.

AJC.com.