the DNC's plantation.

[Winehole23]

The 2006 extension of the preclearance procedure has been challenged in a lawsuit, NAMUDNO v. Holder, which was argued before the Supreme Court on April 30, 2009[12]. The lawsuit was brought by a municipal water district in Texas, which elects members to a water board. The district does not register voters, nor has it been accused of discrimination. However, it wished to move the voting location from a private home to a public school; the preclearance procedure required it to seek approval from the Justice Department, because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5.[13]

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe...o._1_v._Holder

[Winehole23]

In an 8-1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the cons utionality of that provision; citing the principle of Cons utional avoidance, it merely concluded that the district was eligible to apply for a exemption (bailout) from this section per §4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in §14(c)(2) included a district of this nature.

[Winehole23]

Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter. He argued that Section 5 is no longer cons utional.[16]

[Winehole23]

In the next few years, either a local government that tries but fails to get out from under Section 5’s controls, or a state government covered by the law but convinced it should not be any more, would have quite a good chance of renewing the cons utional controversy that the Court did not decide. The main opinion, in fact, provides what could easily be read as a roadmap for such a future cons utional complaint.

Perhaps one of the main ways to read the Court’s ruling, then, is that it it a warning to Congress that it needs to reconsider Section 5, and shore it up, if it can, with a new formula for coverage, and provide some assurance that it will no longer single out some states to bear Section 5’s obligations in ways that the Court suggested were now unequal.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysi...-future-shaky/

via NYT's Opinionator blog

[Winehole23]

Though the Supreme Court by a wide margin today formally declined to resolve a challenge to the cons utionality of Section 5, the reality is far different. The decision unambiguously served notice that the Justices are prepared to invalidate the statute as it stands. Congress is now effectively on the clock: it has the period between now and the date that it decides a follow-on challenge by a covered jurisdiction that is not permitted to “bail out” of the statutory scheme to amend Section 5. If the statute remains the same by the time the next case arrives, the Court will invalidate the statute.


Today’s ruling is thus as much subtext as text. An entire section of the opinion is devoted to the cons utional infirmities of Section 5. There is no counter-point. Nor do any of the Court’s more liberal members issue a reassuring concurring opinion indicating that Section 5 would survive a cons utional challenge - though some surely believe it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysi...rage-scheme-2/