mr. ginsberg for your presentation. in all the services you provide for the city. i want to point out, thank you for getting those things translated into legs. as you know i have spoken to you about that issue with the botanical garden [inaudible] i think they finally put it up. it is important for our departments to make all citizens in san francisco feel like they are part of san francisco, and chesler the materials those that are limited english speakers is really important role to do that. the consideration for the park hours was that last year, i think. legislation which i supported, you stated you expected legislation to result in sort of a decrease in vandalism. have you found that to be true or can you quantify the savings? >> this is still a work in progress supervisor yee. i think the legislation puts us on par with every big city urban park district in the nation that actually has an operating hours in its parts. it does give us a tool to proactively address the potential vandalism and bad behavior before it occurs. it is too soon to determine whether th

justice ginsberg: are you saying, if anyone has standing as an institution -- mr. feigin: if someone were to bring a voting rights act challenge to bring that claim -- justice kennedy: is it part of our jurisprudence that, if it is likely that another person is affected, that that goes into the balance and we say legislature do not have standing because other people out there are more directly affected? do we say that? mr. feigin: no, your honor quite the opposite. even if it means that no one would have standing, that does not in that is reason to find standing. i want to make a couple of points on the statutory section 2ac. i think the statutory issue is easy because the court decided all the relevant issues in ohio against gillibrand and constructed word for word the language of the 1911 act. justice roberts: it's meant to apply when the state has not redistricted under its law. here, the question is whether the law is valid. mr. feigin: just to take your question on, i think the question of the preparatory clause is best understood in context. a neighboring sta

mr. chermerinsky: it could include life experiences and political experiences. merit doesn't have to be so narrowly defined. so i think a merit selection, like john other roberts and ruth bader ginsberg. i don't think it would produce some of the others. i think it could produce another felix frankfurter who came from being a law professor or hugo black. it depends how we define merit and creating such a process would cost a discussion of what we mean by merit. that would be a good thing. >> other state court focus questions. ms. greenhouse: we talked about the failings of the appointment lifetime tenure system. but the majority of state courts have elected judges. many have term limits. those state judges are subject to attack ads, especially with regard to being soft on crime. what is the answer to judicial impartiality? i take it this asks us to reflect on the dangers of the election system for the state courts. not quite our topic, but we certainly have seen recently in the state courts -- wisconsin is one example of the mess it's created up there in the recent judicial election and unseeding of chief justice abramson. terribly messy situation. does anybody have thoughts about el