Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chairman Steve Cohen (D-TN) sent a letter, below, to Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker asking him to provide answers related to the Justice Department’s commitment to enforcing landmark voter protection laws. This includes explaining the Department’s decision to reverse its litigating position in the Ohio voter purge, Texas gerrymandering, and Texas voter ID cases; its involvement in adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census; the low number of case filings related to Voting Rights Act enforcement; the subpoenaing of minority-majority counties for sensitive election data; and other actions that impact the voting rights of Americans. The letter comes after the Judiciary Committee’s hearing this week on portions of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, a package of reforms to restore confidence in American democracy by reducing the role of money in politics, restoring ethical standards and integrity for government, and strengthening laws to protect voting.
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.
§ 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.
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.
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.
Washington, D.C. - Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 Census:
“More than fifty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans are still trying to disenfranchise voters and manipulate the process for partisan political advantage. With the rollback of Section 5 preclearance under the VRA following the Shelby County v. Holder case in 2013, Republicans have pursued an aggressive strategy of targeted disenfranchisement through harsh voter identification laws, built on the myth of voter fraud. Researchers have found that these laws produced dramatic results, decreasing Latino turnout by nine points, African-American turnout by 8.6 points and Asian-Americans by 12.5 points.
“The Administration is now ironically claiming that an inquiry around immigration status for the 2020 census is under the pretext of voting rights enforcement. This claim is laughable coming from an Administration with a record of blatant disregard and continuous rolling back of civil rights enforcement.
“Given this Administration's zeal for anti-immigration enforcement, asking for citizenship information will frighten many immigrants from answering the census, and is guaranteed—and intended—to produce a census not counting a large part of the immigrant population, thus skewing the census against areas, like cities, with large immigrant populations.”
Detroit, MI – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement after a U.S. District Court Judge signed an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of Michigan law P.A. 268, which bans straight-ticket voting:
Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives John Conyers, Jr.
“I applaud Judge Gershwin Drain’s decision to strike down the ban on straight party voting in Michigan. If allowed to take effect, this law would have made voting in Michigan burdensome for many of the citizens of Michigan, and would have further infringed upon minority voters’ access to the ballot box.
“More than 50 years after the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act, it’s shameful that our Republican controlled state legislature would pass a law that has the potential to disenfranchise voters and impede their right to have their voices heard. Instead of making it more difficult to vote, we should be working to strengthen and protect this fundamental right for all. I am glad the court did just that, by upholding our straight-ticket voting system.”
