DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Fransico Flies SCOTUS Request To Remand The Virginia Legislature' "Fill-In-The Blank" Lack Of Legal Standing Voting Rights Act Gerrymandering Case

This is case is supposed to be about racial gerrymandering, but it you take a second, much deeper look into the entire issue of redistricting, the U.S. argument is to remand to the lower court has nothing to do with the brown paper bag test.

It has to do with gerrymandering based upon an assigned, psuedo-scientific classification based upon  the residual of the peculiar institution; this case is about fraud.

Yes, as you have safely deduced based upon everything I do, this case is about TARP and the Virginia Housing Development Authority, which unsurprisingly looks like it was created the exact same way the Detroit Land Bank Authority was, meaning it was never incorporated, but the Virginia legislation allowed room enough in the statute to fill in the blank as to the Corporate Shape Shifter wanted to be, whenever they wanted, of course.

Here is the Virginia "fill-in-the-blank" law of its housing authorities.

§ 36-4. Creation of redevelopment and housing authorities.
In each locality there is hereby created a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, with such public and corporate powers as are set forth in this chapter, to be known respectively as the "__________ (insert name of locality) Redevelopment and Housing Authority" (hereinafter referred to as "authority"); provided, however, that any authority not now activated shall not transact any business or exercise any powers authorized under this chapter until or unless the qualified voters of such locality shall by a majority vote of such qualified voters voting in a referendum held as provided in § 36-4.1, have indicated a need for an authority to function in such locality. The referendum to determine whether or not there is a need for an authority to function (i) may be called by the governing body by resolution or (ii) shall be called by the governing body upon the filing of a petition signed by at least two percent of the qualified voters registered in the jurisdiction, asserting that there is need for an authority to function in such locality and requesting the governing body to call such referendum.
The governing body may by resolution call for a referendum to determine whether there is need for an authority in the locality if the governing body believes it is appropriate for one of the reasons set out in § 36-2. In the case of a town located within the county, the town council shall first obtain the concurrence of the governing body of the county and the county redevelopment and housing authority prior to scheduling a referendum.
In any suit, action or proceeding involving the validity or enforcement of or relating to any contract of the authority, the authority shall be conclusively deemed to have become established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers hereunder if the voters of the locality have so indicated in a referendum held pursuant to § 36-4.1, that there is need for the authority.
1938, p. 448; Michie Code 1942, § 3145(4); 1946, p. 276; 1947, p. 138; 1952, c. 427; 1958, c. 533; 2006, c. 784; 2009, c. 78.

So, just to make sure I was not purporting any legal road blocks to a state legislature usurping the powers of a governor, I checked to see how many times one could "fill in the blanks" of this law.

I came up with 822 opportunities to fill in the statutory blank.

Michigan is trying to push legislation to allow the legislature intervene in suits of law, but former Governor Snyder vetoed.

This is a highlight from the brief:

 If the Court reaches the merits, it should vacate the district court’s judgment that race predominated in all 11 challenged districts and remand for further proceedings. To establish racial predominance, plaintiffs must meet a demanding standard. They must prove that race “was the legislature’s dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines” and that the legislature thus “subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles * * * to racial considerations.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913, 916 (1995). 

So, the moral of the story is, there is no racial consideration when filling in the blank of a state law, particularly when the fake housing authority never incorporated to be able to open a bank account and cash a check, just like the Detroit Land Bank Authority, or the Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation, or whatever Ham Sandwich it answers to.

Besides, race is a residual of the peculiar institution of property classification law of the one-drop rule.

Just ask Elizabeth Warren.

And that is why the state attorney general could not bringforth this case because the fill in the blank law has no legal basis, and could be corporately fungible with a bit of white out.

The U.S. brief goes on to say, blah, blah, blah on legal standing against Writ of Certiorari because only the State Attorney General can represent a state, not the House, or rather the legislative branch.

I call stuff like this privatization, or rather, stealin' the children, land and votes.

This case is about forced migration of geographic targeted population of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) for Public Private Partnership redevelopment.

I make understanding technology and law fun!

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal.

2. Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the Virginia legislature predominantly relied on race when drawing each of the 11 challenged majority-minority districts in Virginia’s 2011 House of Delegates redistricting plan.

SCOTUS 18 281 VIRGINIA HOUS... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©