Hasen Gets it Wrong Again
The Democrat activist posing as a law professor Rick Hasen has a habit of overstating facts. (Particularly involving John Fund or Hans von Spakovsky, when he isn't busy demanding Hans act as his research assistant.) He did it again today. He called me an "opponent of Section 5." I'm not. I'm probably an opponent of Section 4 triggers as constituted but (to my knowledge) have never said that Section 5 should never exist. In fact, I spoke last week at Roger Williams Law School suggesting that a better trigger would be a capture trigger that captures states or government adjudicated to have violated another portion of the Voting Rights Act. I listed Euclid(OH) and Oscela (FL) as but two examples of places found to have violated the law that would be ripe for coverage under Section 5. I also noted this would never happen because certain congressional delegations - ok with screwing the South - would not vote for the change.