One Cheer for Harriett

As Harriett Miers' nomination looks to be in increasingly troubled waters, we'll offer one cheer for Harriett.

Per the Los Angeles Times:

At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in
1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights
Act, she said, "the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional
representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause."

***

"That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation
requirement under the equal protection clause," said New York University law
professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. "If a first-year law student
wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was
unacceptable."

While it is true that there is no "proportional represention requirement" in the equal protection clause, and while it is true that the Supreme Court has denied that it's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act requires proportional representation, as the Lonely Centrist has noted here, the fact of the matter is that the Court does require some rough degree of proportional representation. No member of the Court more eloquently noted that fact than the woman Miers has been nominated to replace, Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers' reply may have been inelegant and ineloquent, but she at least understands what the Court has done in its Voting Rights Act jurisprudence, which is the first step to reversing it.