Key voting rights provision survives

WASHINGTON, June 22 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday 8-1 refused to rule on the constitutionality of a key Voting Rights Act section requiring permission for changes in voting rules.

The ruling means section 5 of the Voting Rights Act survives, despite a vigorous challenge.

The core provision of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act, section 2, bans all states from voting discrimination based on "race or color." The case before the high court involves section 5 of the act, which only targets states and areas with a history of racial discrimination in voting.

Under section 5, those states and smaller areas must seek permission, or "pre-clearance," from the U.S. Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before making changes in the voting process.

The case was brought by the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas, which wanted a statutory "bailout" from section 5, but also attacked the constitutionality of section 5, which was extended by Congress several times -- including an extension of 25 years in 2006.

A lower federal court said the division was not eligible for a bailout -- included but limited in the Voting Rights Act -- and ruled that Section 5 is constitutional.

Writing for the majority in Monday's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said: "Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions. We agree that the district is eligible under the (Voting Rights Act) Act to seek bailout (from the section with permission from a court). We therefore reverse, and do not reach the constitutionality of Section 5."

The ruling reverses the lower court and sends the case back down for a new decision based on the majority opinion, which essentially says all local jurisdictions can at least apply for a statutory bailout.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, dissented in part, saying the pattern of racism that made section 5 necessary "no longer exists."

(NW Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 vs. Holder et al)