Does anyone else think the special election for DeLay's seat may require

[yellowcanine]

preclearance from the Justice Department under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? If Lampson appears twice on the ballot it will confuse voters. They may vote for him once to fill out the unexpired term and not realise they will have to vote for him again for the new term. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act a covered jurisdiction (and Texas is) must "preclear" voting changes that might result in discrimination against minorities. The covered jurisdiction has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the proposed voting change does not discriminate. Even if Lampson is smart enough not to take the bait and file for the special election, having the same office appear twice on a ballot would certainly appear to qualify as a change that might be confusing enough so as to discriminate against a "language minority group."


"Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice "preclear" any attempt to change a voting standard in a "covered jurisdiction." A covered jusidiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 preclearance, either from the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.<6>

Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal preclearance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Jurisdic...

[Dr.Phool]

1. We should ALL file to run for that seat!!!!!

You could be a congressman for 60 days!

I don't know what the qualifying is in Texas, but in Florida, you have to reside in the district when you take office. If it doesn't cost anything, we could get 1,000 candidates!

[yellowcanine]

2. There is a filing fee, $3, 125

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_9487.shtml

See the last line.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

7. here in NC, you just have to live in the state (see vernon robinson)

:puke:

[Felinity]

3. What is the point here?

Why doesn't the (stupid, jerky) Governor just appoint the winner for the two months. How stupid! How Jerky! How, ah, er, how we say in English,oh, yeah how very Republican of him.

[yellowcanine]

5. Not sure a governor has that power for a House seat.

I believe he could do that for a Senate seat but not for a House seat. I could be wrong.

[gasperc]

4. like KOSs idea, file a "shelly" and "Gibb" write-in

I bet the legality is dubious, the Texas democratic party is hopefully carefully combing the law to beat them at their confusion game.

[Igel]

6. I don't.

I think it's silly that invoking the law as written (and used in the past?) requires pre-clearance.

A politician angling for an advantage for his party by using a technicality in the law. Oh, gee. Such a novel idea. Scandalous, I tell you, simply ... :boring:

[yellowcanine]

8. Not sure it is true that this has been done before. It is unusal to hold

a special election for an unexpired term and for a new term for the same office at the same time on the same ballot. Just because it may not be against Texas law doesn't mean it is legal under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The reason for requiring preclearance in covered jurisdictions was to make sure that the law was not being used to discriminate against certain classes of voters. The very reason for the 1965 Act was because the law was being used and had been used to discriminate against minority voters. If you think it is silly then your quarrel is with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is fine for politicians to try to gain an advantage using the law. What is not fine, though is to deliberately try to confuse voters with a ballot in order to gain a political advantage. That is known as disenfrancisement and the 1965 Act made it illegal.

[Igel]

9. Usually the VRA is applied to

new laws, not oddball instances. I think.

I still don't see why blacks or Latinos would be a priori assumed to be more easily confused than whites, however. At least in this case.