Legal News

Scotus Roundup: Narrowing the Voting Rights Act, and More

By Ashby Jones

Most of the big legal news of this morning emanates from the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court. Let’s briefly get you up to speed.

Slimming Down Section 2: The Supreme Court on Monday narrowed the reach of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that only election districts in which minorities make up at least half of the voting-age population are entitled to the protections of a part of the Voting Rights Act that seeks to ensure and preserve minority voting power.

The 5-4 ruling in Bartland v. Strickland rejected arguments that the voting act could require legislative mapmakers to draw so-called crossover districts — those with a substantial but less than 50% nonwhite population. In a crossover district, the idea is that minority voters would create alliances with white voters to elect their chosen candidates.

Justice Kennedy penned a plurality opinion on behalf of himself, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Joining in the result but not the reasoning were Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Souter wrote a dissent on behalf of the four more liberal justices.

The decision is likely to place even more power in the hands of state legislatures when they draw new election lines after the 2010 Census, said Richard Hasen, an election-law specialist at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. “There might be a slight Republican benefit to this decision,” Prof. Hasen said.

Click here for the opinion; here for the WSJ’s story; here for the NYT’s; here for the WaPo’s.

Defining “Speedy Trial”: The Supreme Court issued two rulings on Monday concerning the consequences of long delays in the criminal justice system. In one, the court declined to hear an appeal from a death row inmate who argued that he should not be executed because the 32 years he spent on death row amounted to cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment. The court also ruled that a Vermont man's right to a speedy trial had not been violated despite a three-year delay.

Here’s the story, from the NYT’s Adam Liptak. Click here for the opinion in the Vermont case.

Judging Mutual-Fund Fees: On Monday, the court agreed to hear a case in which individual investors have accused their fund company of charging excessive fees. At issue is the legal standard that small investors must meet to bring lawsuits against fund companies. The court will consider whether a ruling last year sets too high a bar for investors to challenge the annual levies. Click here for the LA Times story.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 10, 2009 (boomark / email).