The Supreme Court issued four decisions this morning, totaling 98 pages, resolving disputes over voting rights, speedy trial rules, expert witness fees, and arbitration. None of the four got widespread attention at earlier stages, but the voting rights case is likely to stir some controversynow. The Court announced the rulings before recessing until March 23.
In the voting rights case, Bartlett v. Strickland, a splintered 5-4 majority of the Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not require state legislatures to create so-called "crossover" voting districts, which count on white voters joining with black voters to form a majority that would elect a minority candidate. Section 2 of the act, which requires legislators to act against the dilution of minority voting power in drawing district boundaries, is only triggered when a compact group of minority voters already exists to form a 50 percent majority of a district's voting age population, the Court said. The North Carolina legislature, arguing that it was trying to obey Section 2, created a nearly 40 percent black district in 1991 that drew on populations from several counties.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr., said legislatures are still free to create crossover districts, but are not required to. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined the judgment in the case, but held to their longstanding view that Section 2 does not authorize any claim of vote dilution.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the ruling is "difficult to fathom and severely undermines the statute's estimable aim. Today's decision returns the ball to Congress' court." Justice David Souter, joined by Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer, said the ruling will have the perverse effect of forcing legislators to pack more minority voters into fewer districts, thwarting the law's purpose.
Matthew Hoffman of Goodwin Procter in D.C., who authored an amicus brief in the case for several civil rights organizations, called the decision "disappointing but not unexpected." The ruling may discourage creation of crossover districts, Hoffman said but, noting that several circuits already adhered to the Court's interpretation of Section 2, he added, "I don't think this chances the landscape very dramatically."
At his Election Law blog Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said the ruling "significantly narrows the reach" of Section 2, but also suggested it may be part of a broader strategy to protect the law from being declared unconstitutional by construing it narrowly.
In Vermont v. Brillon, a criminal case decided by a 7-2 vote Monday, the Court said delays caused by court-appointed defense lawyers should not count against the state in calculating whether requirements for a speedy trial have been met. Ginsburg wrote the opinion, with Breyer and Stevens dissenting. Breyer wrote that the case should have been dismissed because it did not squarely present the issue that the majority decided.
The court in Vaden v. Discover Bank ruled in favor of the consumer seeking state court adjudication in a dispute over whether certain claims against a credit card issuer must be resolved under the Federal Arbitration Act or under state law. Roberts, Stevens, Breyer and Alito joined in a partial dissent. And in Kansas v. Colorado, the justices agreed unanimously that in disputes between states arising under the Court's original jurisdiction, expert witness fees should be capped at $40 a day as they are at the federal district court level.
Comments