SOURCE : Onilne WSJ
BY : Jess Bravin
Category : Orange County Fl Bail bonds, Orlando Bail
Supreme Court Considers Voting-Rights Case
The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether Alabama can draw its election map with predominantly black legislative districts that effectively limit racially diverse areas where Democrats can compete. The case could have implications for redistricting across the country, but particularly in the South, where racially polarized voting has produced legislative majorities of white Republicans and significant numbers of black Democrats, but left little room for white Democrats, whose numbers have dwindled in recent decades. It is the court’s first major review of Voting Rights Act requirements since last year’s 5-4 decision scaled back federal enforcement of the 1965 law. Following the 2010 census, the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature resolved to maintain black supermajorities in a handful of districts, over objections from Democrats who believed having racially diverse districts could help white Democrats hold seats. While Alabama Republicans said they were ensuring that blacks retained the seats they currently held, civil-rights groups challenged the move and accused lawmakers of turning voting-rights laws on their head with the goal of undermining Democratic power in the state.
The high court’s four liberal justices, who dissented from last year’s decision reining in the Justice Department’s power to enforce the Voting Rights Act, appeared sympathetic to the challengers. Conservative justices were more skeptical, but some, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy , sharply questioned both sides. The state “obviously had to move new voters into the majority-minority districts because they were all underpopulated, and they need to move enough so that the minorities have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, but they can’t move too many because that would be packing, correct?” said Chief Justice Roberts, questioning Richard Pildes, a lawyer for challengers. “Your honor, we understand that states are in a bind in this situation,” Mr. Pildes said. But when Alabama’s solicitor general, Andrew Brasher, said the Legislature simply maintained the status quo, Chief Justice Roberts challenged him, too. “The other side says it was impermissible for you to preserve the status quo because the opportunity for minority voters in the majority-minority districts to participate in the electoral process had improved,” he said, alluding to arguments that black- voter registration and turnout has risen in recent years, thus requiring a lower percentage of African-Americans in a district to ensure they could elect their candidate of choice. By those lights, “maintaining the status quo would be characterized as packing” the district, the chief justice said. The 14th and 15th amendments, ratified after the Civil War to protect newly free blacks, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which helps implement them, largely have been interpreted to protect minority districts. When Democrats controlled the Alabama Legislature, lawmakers created districts with African-American super majorities. Republicans, who since took over the Statehouse, maintained nearly identical percentages by moving more blacks into those districts, Mr. Brasher said.
He argued that if the percentages were lawful when Democrats adopted them, they should remain so for Republicans. “The whole point of this plan was to preserve the status quo because the Republican Party had won a majority in the Legislature for first time in 130 years,” Mr. Brasher said. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, appearing on behalf of the Obama administration, said it was improper to use race as a proxy for political party. “You’re stereotyping in that situation,” Mr. Verrilli said, adding there was evidence such assumptions had motivated the Legislature, which split up voting precincts to move black neighborhoods into the districts. While precinct voting information is available, “you don’t know how people in the census block voted. What you know is their race,” he said. The court also heard arguments in a case from Maryland over whether states can tax all of the income of residents when a portion of those earnings had been taxed in another state. The justices were considering how Maryland taxed the out-of-state income earned by a resident who was a part-owner of Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., a national health services company. Maryland’s tax scheme is not the norm. Other states generally allow residents to take tax credits on income earned in and taxed by other states. However, the case could affect income taxes imposed by some local jurisdictions, including New York City. The outcome of that case was unclear from Wednesday’s arguments, but Maryland’s lawyer faced the most persistent barrage of questioning from the court, which could be a sign the state faces an uphill climb.
SOURCE : online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-considers-voting-rights-case-1415838948
Bail Bonds in Orange County Fl 