But, in a narrow ruling, sure to disappoint the hard-line conservatives who had hoped to have the VRA junked, or at least parts of it, per Justice Thomas, declared unconstitutional, got nothing else they wanted, including, above all, the entire provision NOT being junked. And, the Chief, Roberts, appeared OK with that.
In fact, so did the other “hard-line conservatives,” with the exception of Thomas, and so did the more moderate members, as it passed on an 8-1 line. ScotusBlog has more.
Rick Hasen of the Election Law blog finds the court’s chickening out on Section 5 legally laughable, titling one section of his in-depth post: “Chief Justice blinks.”
The reason for that take is that Section 5, on paper, only applies to governments that actually register voters, Hasen notes, and a MUD doesn’t do that.
Why? The stature of Justice David Souter on this issue, Hasen said. And, besides Souter, Justice Kennedy may have endorsed a narrow take early on, leaving the four hardcore conservatives, including Roberts, thinking they had no choice but to play along for appearances’ sake.
Of course, Justice Thomas doesn’t do “appearances,” hence his dissent.
Speaking of hardcore conservatives, the MUD was spinning hard to make this quarter-loaf, at best, look like “a complete victory as far as we’re concerned.”
Bullshit.
It’s not even a quarter-loaf for another reason.
Hasen concludes by noting a political bottom line:
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. We have already seen that the Obama Administration appears more protective of voting rights than the Bush Administration's DOJ. So this will matter a great deal for the next decade of politics in terms of minority electoral success, even if Section 5 is struck down next decade.
And, THAT is why NW Austin MUD didn't win, looking at the strategic and not the tactical level.
No comments:
Post a Comment