Court Rebuffs Challenge to Congress’s 2006 Extension of Key Protections Against Racial Discriminatio

[maddezmom]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2008
12:34 PM

CONTACT: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Stacie Miller 202-662-8317
[e-mail]


The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Wins Landmark Case Upholding Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act
Court Rebuffs Challenge to Congress’s 2006 Extension of Key Protections Against Racial Discrimination in Voting

WASHINGTON, DC - June 2 - A special three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a landmark ruling upholding the reauthorization of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a unanimous decision written by Judge David Tatel, the panel squarely rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which extended for 25 years the preclearance requirement contained in Section 5 as well as other important provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

In the lawsuit, titled Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and co-counsel from the firm of Wilmer Hale represented the defendant-intervenor Texas NAACP. In its opinion, the Court prominently cited the work of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, organized by the Lawyers’ Committee, which made the largest contribution to the unprecedented legislative record created by Congress in passing the Act.

“The argument that Section 5 is no longer needed is without basis,” said Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Executive Director Barbara Arnwine. “We applaud the Court for validating the critically important decision of Congress to reauthorize Section 5. This multi-year effort was a top priority for the Lawyers’ Committee and for the civil rights community as a whole and we could not be more pleased with the outcome.”

The 2006 reauthorization was passed with overwhelming support in Congress and was signed by President Bush in July 2006. The Utility District’s lawsuit was filed shortly thereafter. Although the Court also found that the Utility District was not entitled to “bail out” from coverage under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the main significance of the case rests upon the Court’s unqualified rejection of the Utility District’s argument that Section 5 had outlived its usefulness because the problem of racial discrimination in voting was no longer a sufficient problem to justify its requirements.

more:http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0602-06.htm