Jon Kyl: “I think the point the distinguished assistant majority leader made is very important, and I am glad there is agreement…”

“I think the point the distinguished assistant majority leader made is very important, and I am glad there is agreement on this important matter. I also wish to discuss one other of the bill's changes to section 5. That is the provision abrogating the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. That Supreme Court case held that, when conducting a retrogression analysis of section 5 under the act, a court or the Justice Department should gauge whether a new electoral map has diminished a minority group's opportunities to participate in the political process by looking, in part, to whether the new plan creates coalition districts, or influences districts--that is the term they use--whether it protects positions in legislative leadership for minority representatives, and whether minority representatives support the new plan. Many people objected to this aspect of the Ashcroft decision because of its perceived potential to put a partisan thumb on the scale, so to speak, in the redistricting process. Their concern was if the fact that a coalition or influence district elects a candidate that minority voters largely voted for, then even if that candidate was not the minority group's preferred candidate of choice, any plan that does not preserve that district would be considered retrogressive under the Voting Rights Act.…”