Setting Congress Up to Fail

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on Congress’s failure to justify the formula used to determine which jurisdictions would be subject to the Act’s pre-clearance requirement of submitting all changes to voting procedures to the Justice Department for prior approval. This short essay explores one problematic feature of the Court’s analysis: its refusal to consider the legislative record as adequate because it was created to justify the coverage formula after the fact, rather than to facilitate deliberation on the coverage formula before a decision had been made. This reasoning essentially imports from administrative law a rule called the Chenery principle, and as this essay explains, it does so without justification. The differences between administrative and legislative decision making processes compel different treatment by the courts, and treating legislative records like administrative ones, in essence, asks of Congress something it is institutionally ill-equipped to perform. It sets Congress up to fail.

Shelby County, June 30, 2002

County Audit Report

Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency, June 30, 2002 & June 30, 2003

Other Audit Reports

Shelby County, June 30, 2003

County Audit Report

Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2004

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Shelby County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2004

County Audit Report

Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2005

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Shelby County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2006

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2007

Report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2008

Report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2008

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on the Shelby County Area Solid Waste Agency for the year ended June 30, 2011

Precast Concrete Elements for Accelerated Bridge Construction Final Report Volume 3. Laboratory Testing, Field Testing, and Evaluation of a Precast Concrete Bridge: Black Hawk County,v January 2009

The importance of rapid construction technologies has been recognized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Iowa DOT Office of Bridges and Structures. Black Hawk County (BHC) has developed a precast modified beam-in-slab bridge (PMBISB) system for use with accelerated construction. A typical PMBISB is comprised of five to six precast MBISB panels and is used on low volume roads, on short spans, and is installed and fabricated by county forces. Precast abutment caps and a precast abutment backwall were also developed by BHC for use with the PMBISB. The objective of the research was to gain knowledge of the global behavior of the bridge system in the field, to quantify the strength and behavior of the individual precast components, and to develop a more time efficient panel-to-panel field connection. Precast components tested in the laboratory include two precast abutment caps, three different types of deck panel connections, and a precast abutment backwall. The abutment caps and backwall were tested for behavior and strength. The three panel-to-panel connections were tested in the lab for strength and were evaluated based on cost and constructability. Two PMBISB were tested in the field to determine stresses, lateral distribution characteristics, and overall global behavior.