Analysis

If a legal formula on drawing new election districts to try to help minority voters has worked for more than 20 years, as the federal government insists, the Supreme Court might not have any interest in replacing it unless there were a clear and better alternative.  The Court spent an hour Tuesday talking about different approaches, in Bartlett v. Strickland ((07-689), but found the inquiry confusing, frustrating and inconclusive.  The odds seemed long that the meaning of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act might be significantly modified.

The case involves an attempt, by North Carolina state officials, to do away with the requirement that, in order to complain that their voting strength will be illegally diluted by a districting plan, minority voters must have a 50-plus percentage majority before a district has to be drawn to give them a chance to prevail.  The federal government, taking part in the case, argues that that formula has been followed successfully across the country for more than two decades and, if anything, needs only a little tweaking now to satisfy Section 2.

The state, however, is attempting to defend a plan, struck down by the state supreme court under the 50.1 percent rule, that has only a 39-plus percentage black population.  In that particular district, enough white voters have joined ranks with the blacks to form a winning coalition — thus, theirs is a “coalition district.” The state’s appeal seeks Supreme Court approval of “coalition districts” as a way to avoid a Section 2 violation.

As the hearing Tuesday unfolded, the Court lurched between concern over putting new emphasis on race as a redistricting factor, puzzlement over where the percentage line might be drawn differently, unwillingness to get more deeply involved in second-guessing redistricting, and uncertainty over the way to judge how voters might act in the future as a key to making election arrangements in the present.

Read the rest of this entry »