City of Lockhart v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Marshall
I disagree fundamentally with the Court’s view that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act permits jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to adopt new voting schemes which perpetuate that discrimination. Congress intended the pre-clearance requirement to be a powerful measure for advancing the goals of the Fifteenth Amendment, and specifically reaffirmed that intention when it reenacted the Voting *137Rights Act in 1982. By holding that § 5 forbids only electoral changes that increase discrimination, the Court reduces § 5 to a means of maintaining the status quo. Because the Court’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- South Carolina v. KatzenbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Allen v. State Board of ElectionsSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- White v. RegesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. CurranSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Lane v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.