Podcasts about voting rights act vra

With only a small handful of weeks remaining until the general election, you may be wondering about how you or your nonprofit can get involved in voter assistance activities such as providing rides to the polls, registering voters, and helping voters vote by mail. Would you be surprised that these activities are often regulated by both state and federal law? On this episode, we'll discuss our Practical Guidance Voter Assistance resources series, created in partnership with Democracy Capacity Project, and explain some of the rules you should be thinking about in the final countdown to the big day.   Attorneys for this episode: Tim Mooney Natalie Ossenfort Victor Rivera   General Overview of Relevant Law ·      When engaging in any election-related activities there are several areas of law that your nonprofit should think about: o   Internal Revenue Code: explains the types of activities your nonprofit is allowed to engage in accordance with the tax code §  501(c)(3)s: Keep it nonpartisan. No support or opposition of candidates. Allowed to engage in campaigns for or against ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, bond measures, city charter amendments. Just remember that this activity may count as lobbying at the federal level. §  501(c)(4)s; (c)(5)s, (c)(6)s: Partisan political activities as secondary activities of org §  PACs: Regulated by Section 527 of tax code. Partisan political work as focus, but different types of PACs may be restricted in terms of whether they can engage in coordinated vs. independent expenditures o   Other federal laws, including the Federal Election Campaign Act: always going to be relevant in elections with federal candidates on the ballot §  Provisional ballots available  even if they aren't under state election laws (i.e. can vote provisionally for POTUS if there's a dispute as to registration status and resolve that later) §  Accessible ballots required under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). §  Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires states to provide absentee ballots for military personnel, their families, and U.S. citizens overseas in federal elections. §  Voting Rights Act (VRA) ·      requires jurisdictions with significant populations of non-English-speaking citizens to provide bilingual election materials and assistance, ensuring all voters can understand and participate in the process. ·      allows observers from the Department of Justice or the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to monitor elections to ensure compliance with voting rights laws, especially in areas with a history of discrimination. o   State law: Often regulates §  Who, when, how you can register voters §  Who is eligible to vote-by-mail (and when) §  Line-warming activities designed to encourage voters to stay in line §  Rules for poll watchers §  Voter ID required in some states §  And more!   Practical Guidance Voter Assistance Series o   Focuses on state law, but also includes some federal law tips throughout o   (Questions answered include: o   How can our organization help people vote by mail? o   Can we help with a rides to the polls program? o   How can we help voters already at the polls? o   When might our work also trigger campaign finance laws? o   Can we advocate for a new polling place? o   Current states: o   Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin o   Texas line-warming example o   Reminder that many states don't have polling places (in traditional sense) since they've shifted focus to vote-by-mail. Resources: ·      Practical Guidance Voter Assistance Series: https://afj.org/bolder-advocacy/practical-guidance-nonprofit-voter-assistance-series/ ·      Rules of the Game: Guide to Election-Related Activities for 501(c)(3)s: https://afj.org/resource/the-rules-of-the-game-a-guide-to-election-related-activities-for-501c3-organizations/ ·      The Connection: https://afj.org/resource/the-connection-strategies-for-creating-and-operating-501c3s-501c4s-and-political-organizations/

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been integral to protecting people of color at the polls. But in recent decades, the strength of the VRA has been diminished by decisions like Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the subsequent influx of voter restrictions imposed by states. Despite this, there are ways we can fight back in the courts. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in certain language minority groups. It is the right of private individuals to challenge discriminatory voting practices and of organizations like the ACLU to support those who raise these challenges. But now, the right to bring these crucial cases before the courts is being threatened. On January 30, we received a decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it will not rehear Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, a case which challenges the Arkansas House district map for unlawfully stifling the voting strength of Black Arkansas residents. This decision upholds a 2022 lower court ruling in the case that radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2. This is unprecedented—more than 400 Section 2 cases have been litigated in federal court in the past four decades to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of them. In today's episode, you'll hear from Barry Jefferson, Dorothy Nairne, and Khadidah Stone, three plaintiffs from Section 2 cases. They'll discuss their experiences challenging racially gerrymandered district maps in their respective states, what compelled them to take action, and how we can all be voting rights advocates. To learn more about redistricting, the cases we mentioned in this episode, and the ACLU's efforts to protect voting rights, click here: https://www.aclu.org/redistricting/redistricting-101#slide2

The Voting Rights Act. Last week, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that only the U.S. government, not private citizens or civil rights groups, can sue under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). If the ruling is appealed to and upheld by the Supreme Court, or adopted by other courts, the decision would have a sweeping impact on voting rights across the country. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in a 2 to 1 decision.  You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here.  You can also check out our latest video, a previously paywalled piece about how Israel has no good options here and the controversial debate we posted on YouTube here. Today's clickables: Announcement (0:42), Quick hits (1:28), Today's story (3:35), Left's take (6:30), Left's take (10:22), Isaac's take (14:00), Listener question (17:33), Under the Radar (20:40), Numbers (21:33), Have a nice day (22:20) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.  Take the poll. What do you think about the Eighth Circuit's decision on the Voting Rights Act? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

Welcome to The Georgia Politics Podcast! Megan is joined by Poy Winichakul, a Senior Staff Attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, to discuss Alabama's failed attempt to chip away at the Voting Rights Act and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of black voters in the state. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was a direct response to decades of racism and Jim Crow in the deep south that created an unequal playing field for non-white voters. Section 2 of the VRA is a provision that prohibits state governments from imposing any rules or regulations around voting that would "result in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color". This provision has been used for decades to prevent legislatures from packing and cracking minorities into unfair congressional districts through the redistricting process. Megan and Poy discuss the Allen v. Milligan case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court and, somewhat surprisingly, reinforced the necessity and importance for Section 2. Connect with The Georgia Politics Podcast on Twitter @gapoliticspod Megan Gordon on Twitter @meganlaneg Preston Thompson on Twitter @pston3 Hans Appen on Twitter @hansappen Proud member of the Appen Podcast Network. #gapol

Peabody Award Honoree, ACLU, Emory University, C-Span, Writer, HistorianThe United States Supreme Court decided the redistricting case that could have significant nationwide implications. In Milligan v. Merrill (now known as Merrill v. Milligan before the Supreme Court), in which LDF is delivering oral arguments, the Court determined Alabama's new congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by placing Black voters into legislative districts in a way that dilutes their political power.Yet the Alabama State Legislature Decided in July of 2023 Not to Vote for the Supreme Courts decision that Alabama have two minority Legislative Districts even though The Capital of Montgomery & Birmingham are predominately Black.I am a proud resident of the Washington D.C. Metro Area & know of the redistricting process, having learned this issue as a kid thru Gerrymandering. I bounced thru several district grade schools for years!Steve Suitts is an adjunct at the Institute for Liberal Arts of Emory University, a position he has held for the last twenty years, and has been chief strategist for Better Schools Better Jobs, a Mississippi-based education advocacy project of the New Venture Fund. Suitts began his career as a staff member of the Selma Project. He was founding director of the Alabama Civil Liberties Union, a post he held for five years; the executive director of the Southern Regional Council for eighteen years; and program coordinator, vice president, and senior fellow of the Southern Education Foundation for nearly twenty years.He is the author of Overturning Brown: The Segregationist Legacy of the Modern School Choice Movement and Hugo Black of Alabama: How His Roots and Early Career Shaped the Great Champion of the Constitution. He was the executive producer and one of the writers of Will the Circle Be Unbroken, a thirteen-hour public radio series that received a Peabody Award for its history of the Southern civil rights movement.© 2023 All Rights Reserved© 2023 Building Abundant Success!!Join Me on ~ iHeart Radio @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comTen years ago this week, the Court issued one of its most important, and devastating, decisions. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down key aspects of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This week's episode gets into the case with the legendary John Legend. It's a fitting time to do this, since I just found out I won Moore v. Harper in the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, a case that made clear that many election shenanigans are subject to serious court scrutiny. And the episode begins with a discussion of the Hunter Biden indictment and some reflections on the end of the Supreme Court Term and what to expect. There's a ton of bonus material for paid subscribers too, including John Legend's reflections on his childhood dreams and how he made the transition from a consultant at Boston Consulting Group to the mega star he is today. Please consider subscribing, and I'm giving all profits to charity.Shelby County begins back in the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, the country was deeply divided, and Jim Crow laws were rampant throughout the South. In states such as Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and others, African Americans were systematically denied their right to vote. States and counties weaponized a whole arsenal of different voter suppression tactics. Some were overt, like poll taxes to literacy tests. And others were really subtle, like changing the polling hours for an election in a minority neighborhood the day before the election took place. Or moving the polling place across the street without telling anyone.In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which was the single most important piece of voting rights legislation in American history. The Act contained many provisions, but perhaps the two most powerful were Sections 4b and 5. Taken together, these two provisions said that states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices must get federal court or federal DOJ approval before changing their voting laws. That meant any change – whether trying to have a literacy test or moving a poll across the street. Because Congress knew that there was no limit to the terrible ingenuity of racists who wanted to block people from voting.Now this didn't impact the whole country.  Section 4b, it limited the preclearance requirements only to those states and counties which, prior to the 1964 presidential election, had a voting test in place and less than 50 percent voter registration. This is known as the “Coverage Formula.” In 1965, the formula covered nine states and a few dozen counties that tended to be the most racially discriminatory.The Voting Rights Act (or VRA, as it's called) was passed in 1965 and set to expire after five years. So, the Act was reauthorized in 1970. It was reauthorized yet again in 1975, 1982, and, in 2006. Each time the Act was reauthorized, it was challenged in Court. Time and again, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law; the Court pointed to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting and gives Congress “the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”But then President Obama won the Presidency. And I was tasked with representing the federal Government in defending the Voting Rights Act. It was my 4th Supreme Court argument ever.  My boss Elena Kagan had a long confirmation process, and so instead of her as Solicitor General arguing it, the task fell to me. I worked my tail off.  But it was hard to argue about the persistence of race discrimination 3 months after the nation elected its first black President.  In any event, I threw myself in, and gave what I think was a pretty bang-up argument. I knew the Act had the blood of patriots on its pages – that Selma and the bridge were a deep part of its history.  And I made much of the argument looking directly at Justice Clarence Thomas, because I really wanted his vote.  Well, in any event, we did save the constitutionality of the VRA, in an 8-1 decision.  The one dissenter: Clarence Thomas!In that 2009 decision, called Northwest Austin v. Holder, the Court said that the VRA could stand.  But it said that it was worried the government would have to justify the coverage formula – that it hadn't been updated in 50 years. And so, over the next years, these largely Southern States argued that the coverage formula was unfair.  And so that's the issue in Shelby County.The Court heard the case, and issued a sweeping 5-4 ruling. Writing for the Majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the coverage formula was outdated and violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. He pointed to the changes in voting registration numbers between 1965 and 2006 (when the VRA was reauthorized). For example, in Alabama in 1965, white voter registration was 50 percent higher than Black voter registration; in 2006, that difference was less than one percent. In Mississippi, there was a 63 percent difference between black and white voter registration in 1965, but in 2006, Black voter registration exceeded white voter registration by 3 percent. In short, the Chief Justice concluded that the Coverage Formula no longer addresses current voting disparities, and therefore must be unconstitutional. He writes the following: “In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were…”Justice Ginsburg wrote a phenomenal dissent, one I go into some detail talking about with John Legend. There's no better person to talk about and explain these concepts—John has spent years thinking about and supporting voting rights.If you want a bunch of background material on the Shelby County case, including a short summary of the decision, a longer abridged one, and the full text of the decision, you can find it all at https://nealkatyal.substack.com/

The Supreme Court voting rights ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered Alabama to create a second majority-black district, throwing out its gerrymandered congressional map and upholding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The 5-4 ruling in Allen v. Milligan was a surprise to many court watchers who expected the court to rule in favor of the Republican mapmakers in the state. At question was a gerrymandered congressional map drawn in Alabama in 2021. Tickets are officially live (and public!) for our event in Philadelphia on Thursday, August 3rd. Thanks to all the folks who bought tickets — we're on track to sell this baby out! Remember: Our goal is to sell out the venue, and then take Tangle on the road. Please come join us! Tickets here. You can read today's podcast ⁠here⁠, today's “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠. You can also check out our first YouTube interview here. Today's clickables: Quick hits (0:55), Today's story (2:45), Left's take (8:03), Right's take (12:13), Isaac's take (16:32), Listener Question (21:35), Under the Radar (23:42), Numbers (24:53), Have a nice day (25:48) You can⁠ subscribe to Tangle by clicking here⁠ or drop something⁠ in our tip jar by clicking here.⁠ Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/support

Peabody Award Honoree, ACLU, Emory University, C-Span, Writer, HistorianThe United States Supreme Court will soon consider a major redistricting case that could have significant nationwide implications. In Milligan v. Merrill (now known as Merrill v. Milligan before the Supreme Court), in which LDF is delivering oral arguments, the Court will determine whether Alabama's new congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by placing Black voters into legislative districts in a way that dilutes their political power. I am a proud resident of the Washington D.C. Metro Area & know of the redistricting process, having learned this issue as a kid thru Gerrymandering. I bounced thru several district grade schools for years!Steve Suitts is an adjunct at the Institute for Liberal Arts of Emory University, a position he has held for the last twenty years, and has been chief strategist for Better Schools Better Jobs, a Mississippi-based education advocacy project of the New Venture Fund. Suitts began his career as a staff member of the Selma Project. He was founding director of the Alabama Civil Liberties Union, a post he held for five years; the executive director of the Southern Regional Council for eighteen years; and program coordinator, vice president, and senior fellow of the Southern Education Foundation for nearly twenty years. He is the author of Overturning Brown: The Segregationist Legacy of the Modern School Choice Movement and Hugo Black of Alabama: How His Roots and Early Career Shaped the Great Champion of the Constitution. He was the executive producer and one of the writers of Will the Circle Be Unbroken, a thirteen-hour public radio series that received a Peabody Award for its history of the Southern civil rights movement.© 2022 All Rights Reserved© 2022 Building Abundant Success!!Join Me on ~ iHeart Radio @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona v. Democratic National Convention. The DNC sued the state of Arizona arguing that two of the State's election procedures—refusing to count ballots that were incorrectly cast out of precinct and forbidding most third parties from collecting vote-by-mail ballots for delivery—had a disparate impact on racial minority voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The DNC also alleged that the ballot-collection measure was enacted with discriminatory intent.Although the District Court found no violation of the Voting Rights Act and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed finding disparate impact and that the District Court had clearly erred in finding no discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding 6-3 that Arizona's voting rules did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the ballot collection measure was not enacted with discriminatory intent. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurrence in which Justice Thomas joined. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented. Featuring:-- Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law

On this very special 4th of July episode (No. 15) of Legal AF, MeidasTouch's Sunday law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok examine Chief Justice Roberts continued assault on fairness in the election funding and voting process. First, Ben—podcasting from "outer space"—and a very terrestrial Popok explore the Supreme Court's right-wing majority and Justice Alito's gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the 15th Amendment, in finding that Arizona's new voter suppression laws making mail in voting harder, and disenfranchising accidental wrong precinct voting, are constitutional. Ben also observes that Alito's "five factor" analysis to be used in future VRA cases addressing the time, method and means of voting, is not only "made up," but will be used to kill what's left of the law the next time around. Popok gives Ben a “Pop” quiz on which chief justice from 200+ years ago set the course for how the Supreme Court operates today. Next, the LAF co-hosts dissect Chief Justice Roberts' majority decision finding that California's attempts to regulate charity fraud through disclosure of major donors is overbroad and violative of the First Amendment and its freedom of association clause, allowing even more dark money to flood into our electoral system. The co-hosts round out the Supreme Court review with a look at decisions this term that address social rather than political and electoral issues, including a decision to leave in place a lower court's ruling that discriminating against transgender people by forcing them to not use the bathroom that aligns with their identity violates the 14th Amendment and Title IX. SCOTUS' inconsistent approach to social and religious issues this term is also discussed. Next up, a topic of the LAF law school students have been waiting for: Cosby and the 5th Amendment, where Ben and Michael respectfully disagree on what Cosby was promised by prosecutors before he sat for a civil deposition, and debate whether the 5th Amendment is more important than any one celebrity defendant, no matter his crimes. And of course, no LAF podcast would be complete without a hard look at NY's indictment of the Trump Organization and its long-time CFO on 15 counts of tax fraud, the existence of a Trump “second set of books,” and what it may mean for the Former 45 and family in the near term. Easter Egg Alert: Back by popular demand, more Popok Paper Crumpling! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/support

On this very special 4th of July episode (No. 15) of Legal AF, MeidasTouch's Sunday law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok examine Chief Justice Roberts continued assault on fairness in the election funding and voting process. First, Ben—podcasting from "outer space"—and a very terrestrial Popok explore the Supreme Court's right-wing majority and Justice Alito's gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the 15th Amendment, in finding that Arizona's new voter suppression laws making mail in voting harder, and disenfranchising accidental wrong precinct voting, are constitutional. Ben also observes that Alito's "five factor" analysis to be used in future VRA cases addressing the time, method and means of voting, is not only "made up," but will be used to kill what's left of the law the next time around. Popok gives Ben a “Pop” quiz on which chief justice from 200+ years ago set the course for how the Supreme Court operates today. Next, the LAF co-hosts dissect Chief Justice Roberts' majority decision finding that California's attempts to regulate charity fraud through disclosure of major donors is overbroad and violative of the First Amendment and its freedom of association clause, allowing even more dark money to flood into our electoral system. The co-hosts round out the Supreme Court review with a look at decisions this term that address social rather than political and electoral issues, including a decision to leave in place a lower court's ruling that discriminating against transgender people by forcing them to not use the bathroom that aligns with their identity violates the 14th Amendment and Title IX. SCOTUS' inconsistent approach to social and religious issues this term is also discussed. Next up, a topic of the LAF law school students have been waiting for: Cosby and the 5th Amendment, where Ben and Michael respectfully disagree on what Cosby was promised by prosecutors before he sat for a civil deposition, and debate whether the 5th Amendment is more important than any one celebrity defendant, no matter his crimes. And of course, no LAF podcast would be complete without a hard look at NY's indictment of the Trump Organization and its long-time CFO on 15 counts of tax fraud, the existence of a Trump “second set of books,” and what it may mean for the Former 45 and family in the near term. Easter Egg Alert: Back by popular demand, more Popok Paper Crumpling! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 18, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, a case considering racial gerrymandering claims in the the redistricting of Virginia House of Delegates districts. In 2011, the Virginia House of Delegates redrew the 100 Virginia House of Delegates districts. Under the plan, each district was required to have 80,000 residents. Under the 2001 plan, there were twelve districts with a majority black voting age population (BVAP). These districts did not meet the 80,000 resident requirement for the 2011 plan, which meant that “any new plan required moving significant numbers of new voters into these districts in order to comply with the principle one person, one vote.” Title 52 U.S.C. § 10304--section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)--required that any new plan not “diminish the number of districts in which minority groups can ‘elect their preferred candidates of choice.’” To ensure that at least twelve districts remained, the House of Delegates proposed that the twelve majority-minority districts were required to have a minimum 55% BVAP in the 2011 plan. The bill was passed and signed into law.In 2014, registered voters in the twelve majority-minority districts filed suit against the Virginia State Board of Elections, claiming racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2015 the three-judge district court ruled that race was not a predominant factor in the construction of 11 of the 12 challenged districts, but did predominate in one district, (District 75), though in that situation strict scrutiny was satisfied. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to District 75 but vacated the judgment as to the other 11 districts and remanded the case, concluding that the district court had relied on a flawed standard when assessing whether race predominated.On remand, the three-judge district court concluded that race predominated in the drawing of all 11 districts and that none satisfied strict scrutiny. The Virginia House of Delegates appealed to the Supreme Court for further review, raising various concerns regarding the district court’s predominance and strict scrutiny analyses, as well evidentiary issues. For their part the appellees sought dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court directed the parties to address whether the House of Delegates lacked standing to bring this appeal. To the discuss the case, we have Scott Keller, Partner at Baker Botts.

On March 18, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, a case considering racial gerrymandering claims in the the redistricting of Virginia House of Delegates districts. In 2011, the Virginia House of Delegates redrew the 100 Virginia House of Delegates districts. Under the plan, each district was required to have 80,000 residents. Under the 2001 plan, there were twelve districts with a majority black voting age population (BVAP). These districts did not meet the 80,000 resident requirement for the 2011 plan, which meant that “any new plan required moving significant numbers of new voters into these districts in order to comply with the principle one person, one vote.” Title 52 U.S.C. § 10304--section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)--required that any new plan not “diminish the number of districts in which minority groups can ‘elect their preferred candidates of choice.’” To ensure that at least twelve districts remained, the House of Delegates proposed that the twelve majority-minority districts were required to have a minimum 55% BVAP in the 2011 plan. The bill was passed and signed into law.In 2014, registered voters in the twelve majority-minority districts filed suit against the Virginia State Board of Elections, claiming racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2015 the three-judge district court ruled that race was not a predominant factor in the construction of 11 of the 12 challenged districts, but did predominate in one district, (District 75), though in that situation strict scrutiny was satisfied. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to District 75 but vacated the judgment as to the other 11 districts and remanded the case, concluding that the district court had relied on a flawed standard when assessing whether race predominated.On remand, the three-judge district court concluded that race predominated in the drawing of all 11 districts and that none satisfied strict scrutiny. The Virginia House of Delegates appealed to the Supreme Court for further review, raising various concerns regarding the district court’s predominance and strict scrutiny analyses, as well evidentiary issues. For their part the appellees sought dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court directed the parties to address whether the House of Delegates lacked standing to bring this appeal. To the discuss the case, we have Scott Keller, Partner at Baker Botts.

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voting rights are always in the news in American politics, and recent court decisions and an upcoming election in 2018 make this especially true today. Most discussions come back to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and whether it will continue to provide the voting rights protections it has in the past. In Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act (Stanford University Press, 2017), Jesse Rhodes, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, places the VRA into a political context. He aims to figure out the political puzzle of the VRA: Why, for fifty years, have both Democrats and Republicans in Congress consistently voted to expand the protections offered by the VRA, yet the act remains vulnerable? Why have Republicans consistently adopted administrative and judicial decisions that undermine legislation they repeatedly back? Rhodes argues that conservatives have pursued a paradoxical strategy which takes advantage of high and low salience. The conservative strategy, according to Rhodes, is to accept expansive voting rights protections in highly visible votes in Congress while simultaneously narrowing the scope of federal enforcement in low visibility administrative and judicial maneuvers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 1, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections. Plaintiffs in Bethune-Hill each resided in one of twelve newly proposed majority-minority districts for the Virginia Legislature, created to satisfy Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which requires that any new districting plan must ensure that there be no “retrogression” in the ability of racial minorities to elect the candidate of their choice. Plaintiffs argued that the new districts constituted racial gerrymanders that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia disagreed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged districts. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district--District 75--the state legislature had satisfied the requirements of a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring. -- On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, plaintiffs argued that the district court panel erred in a number of respects, including in determining that that race could not predominate unless its use resulted in an “actual conflict” with traditional districting criteria. Plaintiffs also argued that the use of race in drawing House District 75 was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. -- By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court panel in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the district court panel had employed an incorrect legal standard to determine whether race predominated, noting that challengers are permitted to establish racial predominance in the absence of an “actual conflict” by presenting direct evidence of the legislative purpose and intent or other compelling circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ challenge to District 75, however, determining that the legislature’s action ultimately survived strict scrutiny. -- Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. -- To discuss the case, we have Jack Park, who is Of Counsel at Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

On December 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections. In these related cases, the Court considered redistricting plans introduced in North Carolina and Virginia after the 2010 census. -- Plaintiffs in McCrory argued that North Carolina used the Voting Rights Act’s “Black Voting Age Population” requirements as a pretext to place more black voters in two particular U.S. House of Representatives districts in order to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts. The district court determined that the redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor motivating the new plan. -- Plaintiffs in Bethune-Hill each resided in one of twelve newly proposed majority-minority districts for the Virginia Legislature, created to satisfy Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which requires that any new districting plan must ensure that there be no “retrogression” in the ability of racial minorities to elect the candidate of their choice. They argued that the new districts constituted racial gerrymanders that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged districts. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district, the General Assembly was pursuing a narrowly tailored compelling state interest in creating it. -- In McCrory, appellants contend the lower court decision against them erred in five critical ways: (1) presuming racial predominance from North Carolina's legitimate reliance on Supreme Court precedent; (2) applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of North Carolina Congressional District 1 was “actually necessary” under the VRA instead of simply showing it had “good reasons” to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims; (3) relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove “race rather than politics” predominated with proof of a workable alternative plan; (4) clearly erroneous fact-finding; and (5) failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Appellants further argue that, in the interests of judicial comity and federalism, the Supreme Court should order full briefing and oral argument to resolve the split between the court below and the North Carolina Supreme Court which reached the opposite result in a case raising identical claims. -- The Bethune-Hill appellants also assert five errors by the lower court: (1) holding that race cannot predominate even where it is the most important consideration in drawing a given district unless the use of race results in “actual conflict” with traditional districting criteria; (2) concluding that the admitted use of a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw twelve separate House of Delegates districts did not amount to racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny; (3) disregarding the admitted use of race in drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence regarding the contours of the districts; (4) holding that racial goals must negate all other districting criteria in order for race to predominate; and (5) concluding that the General Assembly's predominant use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. -- To discuss the case, we have Jack Park, who is Of Counsel at Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

Professor Atiba Ellis is back as B-Side's first repeat guest to talk about the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Amidst this contentious shit-storm that may precede the apocalyptic future of this country it is important to understand the history of voting and struggle this nation has and continues to have with making good on its ideals. The Voting Rights Act was a landmark piece of legislation in this country that continues to be assaulted for reasons that Professor Ellis and I discuss in Season 2's second episode. Much of the context surrounding VRA is largely unknown to most people, but it is key for understanding the social tensions that have given rise to our ever increasing vitriolic political environment. Enough with the academic-speak! This is one of the most important episodes to date and one that will stick with you this election season. Enjoy!