1/ Wow, is this comprehensive--and, best I can tell on first read, completely dispositive on actual legislative intent (or at least the intent of all the legislators who considered how the VRA would work).
@AJosephOConnell @steve_vladeck @walterdellinger
@AJosephOConnell @steve_vladeck @walterdellinger
2/ To be sure, the final language of the VRA surely could've been clearer on the question, and it left an opening for OLC's reading, but seems to me Migala has shown that the "508-controls" view is much more plausible, even before one applies the avoidance canon.
3/ He confirms--w/far greater detail than we did--much of what @walterdellinger and I wrote, including our account of the way Congress resolved the same tension in 1873 and our reasons for thinking the OLC view leads to surely unintended anomalies.
justsecurity.org/61483/initial-…
justsecurity.org/61483/initial-…
4/ Even if this isn't the final word (I'm sure DOJ will have more to say), it's now the obvious starting place and it's fantastic work--deepest dive yet by far. Kudos to Migala--who just so happens to be a GULC (Nat'l Security) grad! ;-)
@GeorgetownCNSL @GeorgetownLaw
@GeorgetownCNSL @GeorgetownLaw
