Newswise — On Wednesday (April 29, 2009), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that challenges the coverage and constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act's provision requiring federal review of new voting procedures in states with a history of discrimination in voting.
In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder, a Travis County, Texas, utility district is asking the court to either exempt the district from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or to declare Section 5 unconstitutional. Texas is one of 16 states affected by the Section 5.
"This is the most significant case the Supreme Court has heard involving voting rights in many, many years," says Professor Michael Jude Pitts, an expert at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. Pitts' scholarly work focuses on the law of democracy, particularly Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The United States Attorney General, the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and the Austin Branch of the NAACP, along with other interested organizations, are defendants in the case.
"The Voting Rights Act has led to a sea-change in the nation's political dynamic since its initial passage in 1965 and Section 5 might well be considered the most important part of the Act," says Pitts. "In this case, Section 5's survival is at stake on two levels. The Court may either declare the entire provision unconstitutional or may significantly rewrite the rules for bailout. If the Court chooses either of these options, minority voters stand to lose some of the significant advances that have been made over the last several decades."
Professor Pitts is following the case in detail. Pitts is associate professor of law and dean's fellow, and teaches civil procedure, evidence and election law at the law school which is located on the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) campus.
From 2001 to 2005, Prof. Pitts practiced as a trial attorney in the Voting Section of the United States Department of Justice where he worked directly on matters related to the enforcement of Section 5. He has published several law review articles on Section 5.
RSS