Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    7,928

    High Court Rules Narrowly in Voting Rights Case

    High court rules narrowly in voting rights case

    Jun 22, 4:21 PM (ET)
    By MARK SHERMAN


    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Voting Rights Act, the government's chief weapon against racial discrimination at polling places since the 1960s, survived a Supreme Court challenge Monday in a ruling that nevertheless warned of serious constitutional questions posed by part of the law.

    Major civil rights groups and other defenders of the landmark law breathed a sigh of relief when the court ruled narrowly in favor of a small Texas governing authority while sidestepping the larger constitutional issue.

    After argument in late April, it appeared the court's conservatives could have a majority to strike down part of the law as unnecessary in an era marked by the election of the first African-American president.

    But with only one justice in dissent, the court avoided the major questions raised over the section of the voting law that requires all or parts of 16 states - mainly in the South and with a history of discrimination in voting - to get Justice Department approval before making changes in the way elections are conducted.

    The court said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, could apply to opt out of the advance approval requirement, reversing a lower federal court that ruled it could not. The district appears to meet the requirements to bail out, although the high court did not pass judgment Monday on that point.

    Five months after Barack Obama became president, Chief Justice John Roberts said the justices decided not to determine whether dramatic civil rights gains means the advance approval requirement is no longer necessary. That larger issue, Roberts said, "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today."

    Attorney General Eric Holder called the decision a victory for voting rights and said the court "ensured that this law will continue to protect free and fair access to the voting booth."

    Debo Adegbile, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund lawyer who argued for the preservation of the law at the high court, said, "The fact is, the case was filed to tear the heart out of the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act and that effort failed today."

    But critics of the law said the court made clear that it may not take such a restrained approach the next time a voting rights challenge comes it way.

    "It leaves the courts wide open to another challenge. If someone files a new lawsuit, I think there's a very good chance that down the line they might find it unconstitutional," said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the conservative-oriented Heritage Foundation.

    Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., one of only 33 lawmakers who opposed renewal of the law in 2006, said, "I'm disappointed that the justices laid out the case for why the law is unconstitutional and then stopped short of tossing it. I do feel optimistic, however, that the court's dim view ... means the law will not survive for the full length of its 25-year renewal."

    The court's avoidance of the constitutional question explains the consensus among justices in the case rendered Monday, where they otherwise likely would have split along conservative-liberal lines.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, alone among his colleagues, said he would have resolved the case and held that the provision, known as Section 5, is unconstitutional. "The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains," Thomas said.

    Roberts himself noted that blacks and whites now register and turn out to vote in similar numbers and that "blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."

    He attributed a significant share of the progress to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirement," Roberts said.

    Still, the court did not decide that question in what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently described as "perhaps the most important case of the term."

    The Voting Rights Act, first enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress overwhelmingly renewed the part of the law which provided for the advance approval requirement for 25 years and President George W. Bush signed it.

    The Austin utility district, backed by a conservative group opposed to the law, brought the court challenge. It said that either the district should be allowed to opt out or the entire provision should be declared unconstitutional.

    Based on the tone of the questions when the case was argued in late April, many civil rights and election law experts predicted the Roberts-led court would indeed strike the measure down.

    The court ruled instead on a provision of the law that allows a state or local government to seek to be free of the advance approval requirement.

    The three-judge court in Washington, D.C., that originally decided the case said the utility district did not qualify as a local government that is eligible to bail out. The high court reversed that ruling Monday, saying "all political subdivisions" are eligible to file a bailout suit.

    The Austin utility district is in the heart of Canyon Creek, an affluent suburb of about 3,500 residents that didn't break ground on its first house until the 1980s. About 80 percent of residents in Canyon Creek are white, according to the 2000 census.

    As recently as 2002, voters in Canyon Creek used a neighbor's garage to cast their ballot in their utility board elections. The board wanted to change the polling location to a school, but first had to seek federal clearance.

    The community got it, but Canyon Creek's board felt that needing approval from Washington was an unnecessary obstacle in a tiny neighborhood with no history of minority voter discrimination.

    Associated Press writer Paul J. Weber in San Antonio, Texas, contributed to this report.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090622/D98VUFM00.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    7,928
    Holder vows to enforce Voting Rights Act

    Published: June 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM

    WASHINGTON, June 22 (UPI) -- A key section of the Voting Rights Act survived a muscular challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, but reaction to the high court ruling was varied.

    The justices voted 8-1 not to rule on the constitutionality of the act's section 5, which requires most states in the Old South and other parts of the United States with a history of discrimination to seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before making changes in the voting process.

    The ruling in the Texas case was less than a resounding vote of support for section 5.

    But U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder hailed the ruling as "a victory for voting rights in America," and said the Justice Department "will continue to vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act, which was renewed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in Congress in 2006."

    Sharon L. Browne, a principal attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation's Individual Rights Practice group -- a right-leaning organization that filed a friend of the court brief in the case -- said, "It is disappointing that the Supreme Court decided to sidestep the constitutionality of Section 5, which gives the federal government too much power to micromanage local elections."

    Abigail Thernstrom, vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said: "For 40 years, the Supreme Court has been avoiding the key constitutional conundrums that lie at the core of the Voting Rights Act, and it has done so again today. ... In so doing, the court has simply postponed the day when it will be forced to confront the tough constitutional issues that the perpetuation of a radical provision in the act poses."

    Matt Angle, director of the left-leaning Lone Star Project, warned that after the unsuccessful challenge, "Texas redistricting plans will be reviewed by the Justice Department, and partisan Republicans will no longer be able to count on partisan operatives within DOJ to subvert the law. This puts harshly partisan Republicans on notice that they must respect and abide by the Voting Rights Act or face objection from the Justice Department."

    In an analysis on SCOTUSBLOG.com, Lyle Denniston, former dean of the Supreme Court press corps, said the battle over section 5 may be far from over.

    "In the next few years, either a local government that tries but fails to get out from under section 5's controls, or a state government covered by the law but convinced it should not be any more, would have quite a good chance of renewing the constitutional controversy that the court did not decide," he said. "The main (Supreme Court) opinion, in fact, provides what could easily be read as a road map for such a future constitutional complaint. Perhaps one of the main ways to read the court's ruling, then, is that it it a warning to Congress that it needs to reconsider section 5, and shore it up, if it can, with a new formula for coverage, and provide some assurance that it will no longer single out some states to bear section 5's obligations in ways that the court suggested were now unequal."

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/22/ ... 245701368/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •