The "pending lawsuit" is problematic at least as I read it and please correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone for purposes fair or foul sues a state then that would seem to prevent a bailout. In an idyllic society where suits are filed only with best intent and legitimate concern it wouldn't be much of a concern, however if that were generally true I'd think the number of unemployed attorneys would be quite high. What am I missing? What is to prevent individuals or organizations from just filing or is pending lawsuit something else?
This is outside my area of expertise so I'm asking questions on something I'm not entirely familiar with in order to have a more informed opinion.
From my reading of it, it seems like no-pending lawsuits criteria isn't part of the 10-year statutory period umbrella even though the DOJ list makes it seem that way. Instead, a jurisdiction applying for bailout cannot apply for bailout (or will be denied bailout) if they apply during a period where there are pending cases. I feel that is a fairly reasonable requirement for better or worse. While there may be strike suits to delay approval of bailouts, federal lawsuits are generally fairly expensive and complicated to file. Rules for federal court are a major pain to comply with. All this means to me that it would have to be a very vindictive or careless organization to file a frivolous suit just to prevent a bailout application. It would seem fairly ridiculous to grant a bailout to a jurisdiction if there was an actual pending case alleging violation of the VRA.
Here's a link supporting my argument that the 10-year period does not apply to the no-pending suit criteria:
http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/faq.html#question11
As an additional comment on the possibility for abuse, it's really the same case for any civil case. People can abuse the judiciary with strike suits, however, there are penalties for those frivolous suits that are a misuse of judicial resources including, but not limited to, sanctions, fines, etc.
Facebook
Twitter