bobbyw24
03-09-2009, 08:58 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDTXA8o2CxIc&refer=home
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Voting Rights Act (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Greg Stohr
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court limited the Voting Rights Act, ruling that provisions aimed at maintaining black and Hispanic influence at the polling place don’t apply in districts that are less than half minority.
The justices, voting 5-4, struck down a North Carolina redistricting plan that sought to preserve minority voting power in a state legislative district that is 39 percent black. The high court said the Voting Rights Act’s “anti-dilution” provisions apply only when minority groups can elect their preferred candidate without help from white voters.
Writing for three justices in the court’s controlling opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy applied what he called “an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relative geographic market?”
The ruling may make it harder for minority candidates to win election in some voting districts. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly shown skepticism about governmental considerations of race.
The court in April is scheduled to hear arguments in a potentially more far-reaching Voting Rights Act case, one challenging the requirement that the Justice Department give advance approval before district lines or other voting rules can be changed in many parts of the country.
Concurring Justices
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kennedy’s opinion. Two other justices the majority, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said they would have gone further and barred vote- dilution claims, which they said aren’t authorized by the Voting Rights Act.
In dissent, Justice David Souter said the ruling will have the effect of “contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation.”
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens also dissented.
The case centered on a North Carolina redistricting plan that aimed to maintain the influence of black voters in the state’s District 18. The district has elected a black representative to the state legislature’s House in every vote since 1992, even though it is only 39 percent black.
Today’s ruling upheld a North Carolina Supreme Court decision that said the plan violated a state constitutional provision barring the splitting of counties in forming legislative districts.
The case is Bartlett v. Strickland, 07-689.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 9, 2009 10:54 EDT
Advertisement: Op
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Voting Rights Act (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Greg Stohr
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court limited the Voting Rights Act, ruling that provisions aimed at maintaining black and Hispanic influence at the polling place don’t apply in districts that are less than half minority.
The justices, voting 5-4, struck down a North Carolina redistricting plan that sought to preserve minority voting power in a state legislative district that is 39 percent black. The high court said the Voting Rights Act’s “anti-dilution” provisions apply only when minority groups can elect their preferred candidate without help from white voters.
Writing for three justices in the court’s controlling opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy applied what he called “an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relative geographic market?”
The ruling may make it harder for minority candidates to win election in some voting districts. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly shown skepticism about governmental considerations of race.
The court in April is scheduled to hear arguments in a potentially more far-reaching Voting Rights Act case, one challenging the requirement that the Justice Department give advance approval before district lines or other voting rules can be changed in many parts of the country.
Concurring Justices
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kennedy’s opinion. Two other justices the majority, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said they would have gone further and barred vote- dilution claims, which they said aren’t authorized by the Voting Rights Act.
In dissent, Justice David Souter said the ruling will have the effect of “contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation.”
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens also dissented.
The case centered on a North Carolina redistricting plan that aimed to maintain the influence of black voters in the state’s District 18. The district has elected a black representative to the state legislature’s House in every vote since 1992, even though it is only 39 percent black.
Today’s ruling upheld a North Carolina Supreme Court decision that said the plan violated a state constitutional provision barring the splitting of counties in forming legislative districts.
The case is Bartlett v. Strickland, 07-689.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 9, 2009 10:54 EDT
Advertisement: Op