Court rules narrowly on Voting Rights Act challenge (June 22, 2009)

In perhaps the most watched case of the term, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 "pre-clearance" provision can continue to be enforced, even in areas where it could be argued racial discrimination no longer exists.

Section 5 of the act requires prior review before changes in voting laws can be enacted in certain states. After the law was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2006, a small municipal utility district in Texas filed suit to be exempted from the requirement.

In a unanimous, 121-page opinion last May, two district court judges and an appellate court judge found that the utility board was not entitled to an exemption. It also ruled that Congress had acted appropriately in reauthorizing the law because of the “continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting.”

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, former Texas Solicitor General Gregory Coleman pointed to current events in arguing that the law is outdated.

“The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section 5 was first enacted in 1965,” Coleman wrote for the utility district.

However Civil rights groups contend that overturning Section 5 could strip away key election protections for minorities.

In an amicus brief, the Brennen Center argued: “The Fifteenth Amendment is designed ‘to reaffirm the equality of races at the most basic level of the democratic process, the exercise of the voting franchise.’ Congress has sweeping powers to enforce this bedrock guarantee.” The center adds, that Congress determined that the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements “prevent discriminatory voting measures from going into effect and deter state and local governments from attempting to adopt discriminatory measures in the first place.”

On June 22, 2009 the Supreme Court affirmed in an 8-1 opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions,” Roberts wrote. “We agree that the district is eligible under the act to seek the bailout. We therefore reverse, and do not reach the constitutionality of [Section] 5."

The lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, said he would have found Section 5 unconstitutional.

"The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains," Thomas wrote.

Question presented: Whether the appellant is eligible to “bail out” from the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Congress provided sufficient justification of current voting discrimination when extended the requirement in 2006 for another twenty-five years.