The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Commentary
    • Columns
    • Water Cooler
    • Letters
    • Cartoons
    • Books
  • Sports
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Communities
  • Rebate Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Photos
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • World
  • National
  • Politics
  • National Security
  • DC Area
  • Business
  • Entertainment
  • Technology
  • Investigations
  • Faith
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Headlines
  • Citizen Journalism
  • Business

    Toyota's bumpy ride began with race for growth

  • Security

    Chinese see U.S. debt as weapon in Taiwan dispute

  • World

    Obama ratchets up Iran sanctions threat

  • National

    Mid-Atlantic braces for new wallop of snow

  • Business

    European economies facing grim times

  • Politics

    Obama rejects starting over on health care

  • Politics

    Illegal immigration fell sharply in '08

Home » News » National

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

High court dodges ruling on voting rights

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

Holds off on deciding whether provision is constitutional

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
Please stand by, images loading!
  • BARBARA L. SALISBURY/THE WASHINGTON TIMES
In the spring, Gloria J. Sweet-Love of the NAACP demonstrated at the Supreme Court  as the merits of a redistricting provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was debated. On June 22, the Supreme Court decided that a small voting district in Texas can seek to be exempted from a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

More National Stories

  • Jobs bill cuts payroll tax on new hires
  • Mid-Atlantic braces for new wallop of snow
  • Endeavour shuttle checked for damage
  • 3 workers acquitted in teen girl's death

By Ben Conery

The attorney general and civil rights groups are claiming victory with the Supreme Court's decision not to strike down key parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but others warn that the court's ruling also opens the door for future constitutional challenges to the landmark civil rights law.

The Supreme Court decided in a narrow ruling Monday that a small voting district in Texas can seek to be exempted from a key provision of the Voting Rights Act known as Section 5, which forces districts covered by the law to get Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures.

That ruling allowed the court to avoid ruling on the larger question of whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional, as many analysts had hoped or feared it would.

"The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, but the act now raises serious constitutional concerns," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the court's opinion.

But Chief Justice Roberts also wrote that "the importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it. Quite the contrary: Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions."

All nine justices agreed that the Austin utility district should be allowed to seek permission to opt out of the law's requirements, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion arguing that Section 5 is unconstitutional.

"Obviously, the ruling leaves for another day the larger constitutional question regarding Section 5," said Michael Toner, former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission. "When you have eight justices emphasizing there are 'constitutional questions' with Section 5, the odds are very good the court is going to to be revisiting this issue in the near future."

Despite the potential of future litigation, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and liberal groups, including the NAACP and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, praised the decision for leaving in place the key provisions of the law.

"As a nation, we have made great strides in advancing and protecting civil rights in the past 44 years since the Voting Rights Act was first passed," Mr. Holder said in a statement. "But there is still more work to be done to fulfill the promise of full voting rights, free from discrimination, for all Americans."

Debo Adegbile, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund lawyer who argued for the law before the justices, was more pungent, saying "the utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congresss greatest legacies."

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

12Next »

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash
  2. Va. Senate OKs ban on sexual orientation bias
  3. Another storm approaches Mid-Atlantic
  4. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  5. Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West
More Top Stories »
  1. LYNCH: Drug czar should go
  2. Clinton: Islamist terror is No. 1 threat
  3. Md. may fine for piercing minors without parental OK
  4. Army warned about jihadist threat in '08
  5. Inside the Beltway

Most Shared

  1. Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash
  2. BLANKLEY: Palin delivers sparkle, warmth
  3. Army warned about jihadist threat in '08
  4. New federal office for global warming
  5. STEYN: The 'corpseman' cometh
More Top Stories »
  1. Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West
  2. Drive down debt, or we will be driven down
  3. PRUDEN: Hatching the Silly Bowl
  4. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  5. EDITORIAL: Free the Baptist 10 in Haiti

Most Commented

  1. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  2. Palin: President run may be 'right thing'
  3. New federal office for global warming
  4. Clinton: Islamist terror is No. 1 threat
  5. BLANKLEY: Palin delivers sparkle, warmth
More Top Stories »
  1. Rep. Murtha dies at age 77
  2. Prop. 8 trial stirs questions, emotions
  3. EDITORIAL: Free the Baptist 10 in Haiti
  4. Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West
  5. Blacks face Senate shutout in 2011

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin

Question of the day

Supporters say Sarah Palin scored in her Tea Party appearance, while critics are having a field day with Mrs. Palin's 'hand-o-prompter' (the notes she scribbled on her palm). Who's right?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    White House communications chief to treat Fox differently than ABC, NBC

  • Belief Blog

    Anglican day of reckoning coming

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    (Almost) All about Apple's iPad

  • Redskins 360

    This is goodbye ... for now

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.