The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Supreme Court Hands Down Rulings on Two Provisions of the Voting Rights Act

By NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two important cases that reinterpret two key provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, one of the nation’s most effective civil rights laws – Bartlett v. Strickland and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

Bartlett v. Strickland
The Court issued a ruling on March 9 in Bartlett v Strickland, a case involving an interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2, which prohibits vote dilution and other voting discrimination on account of race, is designed to ensure enforcement of the 15th Amendment. In this North Carolina case, the state argued that compliance with Section 2 of the VRA required the state to deviate from certain redistricting criteria in order to preserve an opportunity district that was less than 40 percent Black but one in which Black voters formed coalitions with crossover voters to elect the minority candidate of choice.

The Court decided that Section 2 of the VRA does not require the drawing of districts in which racial minorities would make up less than 50 percent of the voting age population of the district. While officials remain free to draw or have discretion to create these coalition districts, the Court’s ruling establishes that these districts are not required by Section 2, and thus cannot be defended on that basis in most circumstances.

The decision could have a significant impact in the post- 2010 redistricting cycle.

Even as the Court announced a stringent standard that must be met by litigants in future Section 2 cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his plurality opinion which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, recognized the incomplete state of America’s efforts to eradicate entrenched voting discrimination, observing that: “racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history. Much remains to be done to ensure that citizens of all races have equal opportunity to share and participate in our democratic processes and tradition…”

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the VRA. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by seven other justices, the Court declared that “the historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” It also stated that Section 5 of the law – the provision under specific challenge – was critically important in preventing and addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens in jurisdictions across the country.

Section 5 requires some entire states and some jurisdictions within other states which have a history of discrimination in voting to obtain permission, or “preclearance,” from the Department of Justice or special federal courts before changing voting procedures.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) was one of the organizations contributing a friend-of-thecourt brief in the highly-charged case. Debo P. Adegbile, director of litigation, argued the case before the Court in April, along with the federal government’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal.

John Payton, president and director-counsel of LDF, said in a statement after the ruling, “The entire thrust of LDF’s argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy, and however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today.”

Payton characterized the ruling as “unusually harmonious,” saying it “upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection of our democracy. … Section 5 has long been symbolic of the nation’s long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protection, our nation would face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made.”

“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act,” said Adegbile. “Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress’s greatest legacies.”

The Court’s ruling expanded the number of jurisdictions that can seek to “bailout” or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without proving it’s had a clean bill of health for a 10-year period.

The bailout provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it, LDF attorneys said. They added, however, that it remains to be seen how the Court’s interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5. If, for any reason, the Court’s ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute.

Republished with permission. All rights reserved