|
''Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder'', , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and in particular its requirement that proposed electoral-law changes in certain states must first receive pre-clearance from the Federal government. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court concluded that the district was eligible to apply for an exemption (bailout) from this section per §4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in §14(c)(2) included a district of this nature. In an 8–1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of that provision; citing the principle of Constitutional avoidance. ==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.〔http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.13.htm Under Section 13.002 of the Texas Election Code, voter registration is at the county level only.〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|