Voting Rights Act Sec.5

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Voting Rights Act Section 5 ruling [US DC]
3:46 PM ET

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, US District Court for the District of Columbia, May 30, 2008 [upholding the validity of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states or towns with histories of racial discrimination to get approval from either a court or the US Department ofJustice prior to making changes in their electoral procedures]. Read the full text of the opinion [text, PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.

Interesting Read completing law suits

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1384-133

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL )

UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 06-1384

) Three-judge court

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ) (PLF, EGS, DST)

Attorney General of the United States, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

Before: FRIEDMAN and SULLIVAN, District Judges, and TATEL, Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

OPINION

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits

“covered jurisdictions”—those states and political subdivisions with histories of racial

discrimination in voting—from making any change in their voting procedures without

first demonstrating to either the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of this court that

the change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the

right to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Plaintiff, a municipal

utility district in Texas, a covered jurisdiction, seeks a declaratory judgment exempting it

from section 5’s “preclearance” obligation. In the alternative, plaintiff challenges section

5’s constitutionality, arguing that when Congress extended the provision in 2006 it lacked