Northwest Austin Municipal v. Holder
 |
redistricting procedures |
|---|
2020 |
|
Northwest Austin Municipal v. Holder, a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2009, established that all political subdivisions, such as utility districts, are eligible to be released from the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[1]
Background
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain state and local governments to preclear changes in election laws with the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia prior to their enactment. Section 4(a) provides that a jurisdiction may seek release from the preclearance requirements if it has eliminated voting procedures that inhibited or diluted equal access to the voting process.[2][3]
The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1, as a part of Texas, was subject to the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The district filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing it had no history of racial discrimination and that Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act allowed the district to seek to be released from preclearance. The district further argued that Section 5 was unconstitutional if it did not declare them eligible to seek release from preclearance. The district court rejected the claims, claiming that Section 4(a) did not apply to entities that did not register voters, and that Section 5 was constitutional. The district appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.[1]
Decision
On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court found in favor of the district in a unanimous decision that the district could seek to be released from preclearance per Section 4(a). The court decided not to address the constitutionality of Section 5 in an 8-1 decision. The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts.[4][5]
Roberts wrote the following for the majority opinion:[6]
| “ | More than 40 years ago, this Court concluded that “exceptional conditions” prevailing in certain parts of the country justified extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 334. In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different Nation. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.[7] | ” |
| —Chief Justice John Roberts | ||
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on the decision to not address Section 5, arguing that Section 5 is unconstitutional as it exceeded Congress' power to enforce the 15th Amendment.[4][5]
Later developments
- See also: Shelby County v. Holder
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court issued a broader ruling on the constitutionality of preclearance requirements. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, declared Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, removing clearance for all jurisdictions. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5. The majority opinion was delivered by Roberts.[8]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez.org, "NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL v. HOLDER," accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ Justice.gov, "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 6, 2015
- ↑ Justice.gov, "About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 6, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Justia.com, "Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder 557 U.S. 193 (2009)", accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 SCOTUSBlog.com, "Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder," accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ law.cornell.edu, "NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOv.HOLDER (No. 08-322)," accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog.com, "Shelby County v. Holder," accessed July 8, 2015
