Justices Deliver Narrow Ruling on Voting Rights Act

RAY SUAREZ:

It was another busy day at the court. The justices handed down several opinions, including one of the most highly anticipated of the term. In an 8-1 ruling, the court let stand a key provision of the civil rights-era law designed to provide equal access at the voting booth.

Here to tell us more about that decision, among others, is Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal.

And, Marcia, at the heart of today's ruling were questions about Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. What is that?

MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal:

Section Five is considered almost the heart of the Voting Rights Act. It requires covered jurisdictions — those are government bodies with a history of voting discrimination — to get permission from the attorney general of the United States or a federal court whenever it wants to make any voting changes. Congress has renewed Section Five four times, most recently in 2006 for an additional 25 years.

RAY SUAREZ:

So the case that came up — that was ruled on today, this involved a Texas jurisdiction?

MARCIA COYLE:

It did. There is a municipal utility district in Texas, and it brought the case to the Supreme Court with basically two questions. One, it said, it wanted to know if it qualified for what is known as bailout of Section Five. There is a provision that allows these jurisdictions to bail out of Section Five's permission requirements if they meet certain standards. And the utility district said, If you find we don't in the alternative, hold Section Five unconstitutional.

RAY SUAREZ:

So 8-1, not a close call. What was the decision?

MARCIA COYLE:

Well, there is a judicial doctrine, Ray, known as constitutional avoidance. And it says that courts should try — always try to resolve a case on non-constitutional grounds and interpret the Constitution only when there's no other option.

Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision today, said he was applying that doctrine. He could — the court could resolve this case on the bailout question alone.

The court examined the bailout provision, decided that the federal government and the courts had interpreted it so narrowly that it was virtually a nullity. He noted that only 17 jurisdictions since 1982 out of roughly 2,000 had ever been allowed to bail out of the law. He said that prevents — that means the court could avoid ruling on the big constitutional question involving Section Five.

RAY SUAREZ:

So it answered just the petition of this Texas utility and didn't attempt to make any wider law in this ruling?

MARCIA COYLE:

That's correct. It said the utility was eligible to apply for bailout.

RAY SUAREZ:

Now, who was the lone dissenter? Who was the one?

MARCIA COYLE:

Justice Thomas. He said he would have found that the Section Five provision was unconstitutional. And he said he would find that because he felt the pattern of discrimination that allowed the court to uphold Section Five in previous years no longer exists. He felt Congress did not provide current evidence of discrimination in those covered jurisdictions to justify extending Section Five.