Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

Background

The appellant is a small utility district located northwest of Austin, Texas. The district is run by an elected board.

The District never had any history or claims of racial discrimination in any of its elections. However, because the district is located in Texas, it was subject to the requirements of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the Act, which applies to states with a history of discrimination, especially in the South given Jim Crow-era laws) and extends to any "political subdivision" within the state.

However, another section of the Act, §4(a), allows a political subdivision to seek "bailout" (i.e., release from the preclearance requirements) if certain conditions are met. The District thus filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking bailout under §4(a). The District argued in the alternative that, if §5 were interpreted to render it ineligible for bailout, §5 was unconstitutional.

The District Court rejected both claims. It concluded that bailout under §4(a) is available only to counties, parishes, and subunits that register voters, not to an entity like the district that does not register its own voters. It also concluded that a 2006 amendment extending §5 for 25 years was constitutional.

Arguments were held on April 29, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito questioned why Congress did not extend §5 to all 50 states.

Section I [legal and historical background]

In Part A, Roberts described the Fifteenth Amendment's problematic history of enforcement that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, much of which consists of a "scheme of stringent remedies aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant." These remedies were bolstered by §5, which suspended any change in state election procedure until the federal government certified that it neither "has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." To confine these remedies to areas of flagrant disenfranchisement, the Act applied them only to States that met certain explicit standards. However, recognizing that this coverage formula "might bring within its sweep governmental units not guilty of any unlawful discriminatory voting practices, [Congress] afforded such jurisdictions immediately available protection in the form of ... [a] 'bailout' suit."

Roberts then laid out the requirements of such a suit under D. C. 42 U. S. C. §§1973b. He noted that §§4 and 5 were temporary provisions—they were originally expected to be in effect for only five years. §4(a), 79 Stat. 438. However, Congress reauthorized the Act in 1970 (for 5 years), 1975 (for 7 years), and 1982 (for 25 years); each reauthorization was litigated as unconstitutional, and each time the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. Most recently, in 2006, Congress extended §5 for yet another 25 years. It was this latest extension that was now before the court.

Part B characterized the procedural history of the District's suit.

Section II [Constitutional claim]

In Section II, Justice Roberts acknowledged the "undeniable" historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Act "now raises serious constitutional concerns." In particular, §5, "which authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking, imposes substantial 'federalism costs,' " costs which have caused Members of this Court to express serious misgivings about the constitutionality of §5. Meanwhile, some of the conditions that the Court relied upon when it previously upheld this statutory scheme have unquestionably improved. "Those improvements are no doubt due in significant part to the Voting Rights Act itself, and stand as a monument to its success," but the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs. The Act also differentiates between the States in ways that may no longer be justified.

The Court recognizes that judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform." The District Court found that Congress's contributions to the record documented continuing racial discrimination, and that §5 deterred discriminatory changes. The Court will not shrink from its duty "as the bulwark of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments," but "[i]t is . . . well established. . . that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case." Here, the district does provide such other grounds: it raises a statutory claim that it is eligible to bail out under §§4 and 5. The existence of this claim invokes this principle of "Constitutional avoidance," as characterized in Escambia County v. McMillan.

The Court disagreed with Justice Thomas's argument that this principle has no pertinence here. He contends that even if the Court resolved the district's statutory argument in its favor, it would still have to reach the constitutional question, because the district's statutory argument would not afford it all the relief it seeks. However, the district expressly describes its constitutional challenge to §5 as being "in the alternative" to its statutory argument. The district's counsel confirmed this at oral argument.

Section III [Statutory claim]

In Section III, Roberts addressed the district's narrower argument that it is eligible for a bailout under the requirements of §§4 and 5. The question hinged on the intended definition of the term "[P]olitical subdivision" as used in §14(c)(2). The Court concluded that "all political subdivisions--not only those described in §14(c)(2)--are eligible to file a bailout suit," thus overturning the district court.

Concurrence in part; dissent in part

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.

He concurred with the judgment that the District should be able to file a bailout suit. However, he dissented from the majority's decision not to address the constitutionality of §5, and argued that §5 is no longer constitutional (a position he would take once again in Shelby County v. Holder when the issue of §5's constitutionality would once again be raised).