BuzzStoc

The Supreme Court found in favor of The Voting Rights Act today in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas v. Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States. The Supreme Court determined that despite advances in civil rights in this country, the Voting Rights Act was still a necessary piece of legislation.

Despite or because of today’s ruling, the VRA may be in for serious constitutional questions. With the ruling, the Court has made it possible for cities, towns, and other small jurisdictions to qualify for an exemption from long-mandated federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1, could apply to opt out of the advance approval requirement, reversing a lower federal court that ruled it could not.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the high court embraced a more expansive reading of a key part of Section 5. The provision requires jurisdictions governed by the Voting Rights Act to obtain federal permission before making any changes to election procedures. The ruling broadens the kinds of jurisdictions that can use the “bailout” provision in Section 5 to end federal oversight.

The case was being watched closely because many analysts believed a majority of justices might vote to declare the whole law unconstitutional.

Instead of confronting that constitutional issue, in what would have been a highly controversial decision, the majority justices resolved the case by interpreting the underlying voting-rights statute.

After argument in late April, it appeared the court’s conservatives could have a majority to strike down part of the law as unnecessary in an era marked by the election of the first African-American president.

Read the full legislation below.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No 1 v Holder, Atty General -