Bartlett v. Strickland (Amicus Counsel)

The United States Supreme Court will decide this term a voting rights case that could have a significant impact on state redistricting plans following the 2010 census.

The case concerns a 2003 redistricting plan in North Carolina, under which the General Assembly split the state’s 18th District between portions of two counties in order to create one district with a 39% African-American voting-age population. Since taking effect, voters have elected Rep. Thomas Wright, the African American candidate of choice, to the district in the past two elections.

The Pender County Board of Commissioners sued the state in May 2004, contending that the districting map violated the state Constitution’s “whole county” provision by slicing one county into two districts. State officials defended the move, arguing that the district had to divide the county in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which protects racial and ethnic minorities when districts lines are drawn. A three-judge panel of the North Carolina Superior Court agreed.

In August 2007, the state Supreme Court reversed the lower court, ruling 4-2 that because the district does not have a majority African-American population, it did not fall under the mandate of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects racial and ethnic minorities when districts lines are drawn. It ordered the map redrawn following the 2008 elections.

In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a racial minority group must constitute a numerical majority in a proposed district before seeking to invoke the protections of Section 2 of the VRA. The Supreme Court decision, if left unchecked, will make redistricting in 2011 and the cause of making districts reflect emerging Latino electoral strength much harder. MALDEF had filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in support of the petitioner.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Creates New Barriers to Election of Latinos

MALDEF calls for Congressional review and action

March 09, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC — In a sharply split decision today, the United States Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland closed the courthouse doors to many Latinos and other minority communities who face discrimination with regard to voting. This decision, over the dissent of four Justices, severely weakens these minority groups’ ability to utilize the Voting Rights Act to challenge election districts that strip these communities of the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

“This decision leaves many minority voters unprotected against electoral systems that would dilute their voting strength. It contradicts the language and intent of the Voting Rights Act. Just as Latino voting strength is growing and we are poised to have a greater effect on elections nationwide, this decision undermines the ability of courts to protect against voting systems that would discriminate,” said Nancy Ramirez, MALDEF Western Regional Counsel.

The ruling in Bartlett v. Strickland requires that the minority voting age population of a district must now potentially exceed 50% in order for minority groups to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge a new district that would impair their ability to elect a representative of their choice. The Court disallowed a North Carolina State House district that had a 39.4% African American population and had elected a candidate who represented that community. The district was challenged because it violated a state law that required districts to cover whole counties. The Court ruled that African Americans were powerless to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to protect the district because there were not enough African Americans in the district to meet the new 50% standard.

“The Supreme Court decision, if left unchecked, will make redistricting in 2011 and the cause of making districts reflect emerging Latino electoral strength much harder, just as the Latino community is growing and gaining political power,” continued Ramirez. “That is why we are asking Chairman Patrick Leahy and Chairman John Conyers of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees to conduct hearings into the decision and recommend amendments to the Voting Rights Act to restore its traditional meaning and allow future challenges to discriminatory districts.”