On Racial Redistricting

Ben Bianco’s letter setting forth reasons we are exempt from the racial balancing law.

And this, redacted letter, from a law firm retained by the town to investigate challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut’s law:

Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:59 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: RE: Potential Legal Alternatives to RB Statute

…. I suggest that we address your question in two stages.  As to the question of
how we would propose to handle the litigation and how much the litigation
would cost, I will need assistance from my litigation partners.  However,
before asking them to assist in preparing a litigation budget and a team to
propose, I recommend that we undertake the research you request concerning
the viability of bringing such an action.  Having an understanding of the
underlying legal principles will inform our recommendations as to the
potential litigation.

While any estimate is perforce [this is how you know we’re hearing from a lawyer – ED] speculative, I estimate that we can research this question and describe our findings in between 10 and 20 hours of research for … and 5 to 10 hours of my time.  The estimated cost of the initial research stage of the project, accordingly,  would [be] estimated totals ranging from $4000 to $8000 for the research.

12 Comments

Filed under Right wing nut rantings

12 responses to “On Racial Redistricting

  1. Anonymous

    Which town entity retained the firm? BoE? June 23rd was awhile ago and 8k is a drop in the bucket.

  2. Anonymous

    hhmm….now that’s interesting proof nut’n is going on into truly looking into a legal avenue for counter attacking this racial balance mandate.

    Well, just like our Democratic “elections” in this Town are a sham…..the so called “genuine open mind and research” is a sham.

    And, then some wonder why some of us are so skeptical with our current government and its leaders.

  3. David Smith

    Ya know,

    In my (non lawyer) experience, basic legal research isn’t that difficult if the local law library allows the commoners in to do their own.

    OK. It may miss some obscure refinement, but if you’re basing your (constitutional) case on some subtle interpretation 150 years ago, you have no case and don’t need to pay for a lawyer to tell you you’re correct and you should drop the case.

    • Greenwich has more high power lawyers, probably, than anyplace east of Manhattan. But why would the BOE seek great, free legal advice if it would contradict what they have already decided is the proper legal conclusion?

  4. Once

    How about the reason because “the supreme court said can’t move kids according to the color of their skin”?

    • Oh hell, don’t apologize for being snarky on this blog, it’s what we all do. Just be prepared to have snark tossed back at you. All part of the fun.

    • Understand that our BOE doesn’t agree with or like that holding, and then their refusal to tell the state to pound sand will make perfect sense.

      • Anonymous

        Does anyone know where the BoE stands on the survey results. Quite curious to know the response rate. And also want to know if anyone was seriously willing to ship their kids back to parkway or north street for a magnet. Total waste of time and money if they decide to add more magnets and would hope the survey results would make the BoE more eager to get the research results.