Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

2-1-2013

Abstract

The Voting Rights Initiative ("VRI") at the University of Michigan Law School is a faculty-student collaborative research venture under the direction of Professor Ellen D. Katz. In 2005, VRI undertook a comprehensive analysis of all cases involving claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1982 that resulted in one or more decisions published in a federal reporter or available on Westlaw or Lexis-a total of 763 decisions in 331 lawsuits. Each case was evaluated and catalogued based on a variety of factors, including whether it involved a jurisdiction "covered" under Section 5, the substan- tive outcome, the specific challenged practices, and any relevant judicial findings under the so-called "Senate Factors" analysis.

VRI published a final report of its findings and analysis in 2006 (the "VRI Study" or "Katz Study"), and made its entire database available on line in a searchable form (the "VRI database").' "The aim of th[e] report and the accompanying website [was] to contribute to a critical understanding of current opportunities for effective political participation on the part of those minorities the Voting Rights Act seeks to protect." VRI Study at 645.

The VRI Study (in draft form) and database were part of a 15,000-page evidentiary record that Congress considered when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. See Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-246, 120 Stat. 577 ["2006 Act"]; see also Pet. App. 265a-66a. The study was cited in the House and Senate Reports, and discussed in various committee hearings. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals below relied on the VRI Study and database in upholding the constitutionality of the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5's preclearance requirement in the covered jurisdictions. See Pet. App. 130a, 232a-40a; id. at 49a (describing the VRI Study as "the most concrete evidence comparing covered and non-covered jurisdictions in the legislative record"); id. at 36a-38a, 49a-51a, 54a-60a.

Petitioner Shelby County, some of its supporting amici, and the dissent below, on the other hand, have either criticized aspects of the VRI Study, denied its relevance, or relied on it as purported evidence that Section 5 preclearance is no longer justified in at least some covered jurisdictions. Id. at 90a-97a (Williams, J., dissenting); Pet. Br. 36, 46-52; see also n.9 infra.

Amici curiae Professor Katz and VRI have an interest in ensuring an accurate description and interpretation of their study's findings and underlying data. Based on their familiarity with the relevant Section 2 data, amici respectfully offer their views on those data and the implications of those data for the constitutionality of reauthorized Section 5.

Comments

Amicus: Katz, Professor Ellen D.; Voting Rights Initiative

Download

Share

COinS