Tuesday round-up

Coverage continues of pre-election challenges to various state voting law restrictions. In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that a “coalition of civil rights groups, Democratic lawyers and the Obama administration has scored significant victories in overturning strict voting laws, highlighting how the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has removed the Supreme Court as a crucial conservative backstop for such measures.” Commentary comes from Rick Hasen, who at his Election Law Blog discusses Michigan’s request for emergency relief from a district court ruling holding that Michigan’s attempt to eliminate straight-ticket voting violates the Voting Rights Act. And at The Economist, Steven Mazie observes that “asking for 11th-hour emergency stays from a Supreme Court that is split down the middle on the legality and constitutionality of voting restrictions carries a whiff of desperation.”

In remarks last week, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan discussed the current and future composition of the Court. Coverage comes from Adam Liptak of The New York Times, who reports that although both Justices “steered clear of commenting directly on the stalled nomination of his third choice, Judge Merrick B. Garland,” they “did talk about how a new colleague could reinforce or disrupt a court that is in some ways exceptionally homogeneous.” In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes notes that, according to Justice Sotomayor, “the court is simply not engineered to mirror a changing America.” And, according to Curt Prendergast of The Arizona Daily Star, Justice Kagan told a University of Arizona audience that “the political pressure facing President Obama’s stalled high-court nominee doesn’t spill over onto sitting justices” and that “most demographic, geographic, and educational characteristics do not play an important role in each justice’s decision making.”

Briefly:

Posted in: Round-up

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY