Term: 2008
Docket: 08-322
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Et Al.
- Pro
08-322 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUN. UTIL. V. HOLDER DECISION BELOW: 573 F. Supp. 2d 221 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether §4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which permits "political subdivisions" of a State covered by §5's requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear changes affecting voting with the federal government to bail out of §5 coverage if they can establish a ten-year history of compliance with the VRA, must be available to any political subunit of a covered State when the Court's precedent requires "political subdivision" to be given its ordinary meaning throughout most of the VRA and no statutory text abrogates that interpretation with respect to §4(a). 2. Whether, under the Court's consistent jurisprudence requiring that remedial legislation be congruent and proportional to substantive constitutional guarantees, the 2006 enactment of the §5 preclearance requirement can be applied as a valid exercise of Congress's remedial powers under the Reconstruction Amendments when that enactment was founded on a congressional record demonstrating no evidence of a persisting pattern of attempts to evade court enforcement of voting-rights guarantees in jurisdictions covered only on the basis of data 35 or more years old, or even when considered under a purportedly less stringent rational-basis standard LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-1384
In the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 2008, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a small municipal utility district in Texas was eligible to "bail out" from coverage under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The VRA required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws or procedures. The utility district argued that it should be allowed to bail out because it had not engaged in discriminatory practices and that Section 5 was unconstitutional as it violated principles of federalism and equal sovereignty among states. However, the court did not rule on these constitutional issues but instead interpreted bailout eligibility broadly so as to include entities like this utility district within its scope. Thus, while upholding Section 5's constitutionality for now, they also opened an avenue for more local governments to escape its requirements if they can prove non-discrimination.
In the dissenting opinion for Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. He believed that this provision exceeded Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment because it was no longer necessary or appropriate to prevent discriminatory voting practices in states with a history of such behavior. According to him, there had been significant progress since its enactment in 1965 and therefore it did not meet current needs or conditions anymore. Furthermore, he contended that this section violated principles of federalism by imposing burdensome requirements on certain states while exempting others without sufficient justification for these disparities.
