Case Summary
Issue:
Whether Congress may demand, based on conditions that existed more than forty years ago, that a sovereign State continue to yield to the Attorney General of the United States control of the manner in which its citizens vote?
Plaintiff:
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One
Defendant:
Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States; United States of America
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In 1965, Congress adopted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to address the intransigent denial by some state and local governments of the right to vote. Section 5 of the VRA requires a “covered jurisdiction” to seek “pre-clearance” for any proposed change in a voting “standard, practice, or procedure” to ensure that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Despite that Section 5 was the greatest intrusion into the right of States to set voting procedures, it was upheld by the Supreme Court given the specific circumstances found by Congress as to denial of the right to vote. Although 41 years had passed, the VRA was reauthorized in 2006 without fact-finding as to whether the facts that gave rise to its original enactment still exist.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One is a political subdivision of Texas, within the boundaries of the City of Austin and Travis County but independent of both. Because Texas is a “covered jurisdiction,” so too is the District. The District sued arguing that Section 5 is unconstitutional because the conditions that caused Texas to be covered by Section 5 have long been remedied or are not sufficiently severe to merit such a severe remedy. On May 30, 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld Section 5.
On September 10, 2008, the Utility District filed a Jurisdictional Statement with the Supreme Court. On October 10, 2008, MSLF filed its friend of the court brief in support of Supreme Court review. On February 19, 2009, the Utility District filed its opening brief. On February 26, 2009, MSLF filed its amicus brief. Oral argument was held on April 29, 2009.
