Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Background

The dispute involves the Bossier Parish School Board, the local NAACP president, and the U.S. Attorney General. The school board chose a redistricting plan that kept the existing number of black-majority districts, while the NAACP proposed an alternative creating two majority-black districts. The Attorney General objected, saying the board’s plan violated the federal vote-dilution law (section 2). The board sued for preclearance under section 5 and the District Court granted preclearance while refusing to consider section 2 evidence as proof of discriminatory purpose.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court answered two questions: whether section 5 preclearance must be denied whenever a plan violates section 2, and whether evidence that a plan dilutes minority votes is always irrelevant to whether the plan was adopted with forbidden purpose under section 5. The Court held that a section 2 violation alone does not automatically defeat section 5 preclearance. But it also held that evidence showing a plan’s dilutive impact can be relevant to proving a discriminatory purpose (specifically an intent to worsen minority electoral position). Because the District Court may not have considered that evidence, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Covered local governments, the Justice Department, and voting-rights challengers will be affected. The ruling prevents automatic denial of preclearance based only on a section 2 finding, yet allows courts to consider dilution evidence when deciding whether a change was adopted with discriminatory purpose. The case returns to the lower court for more fact-finding and possible further litigation.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg would say the section 5 “purpose” inquiry goes beyond retrogression and includes unconstitutional dilution. Justice Stevens (joined by Souter) argued section 2 violations can bar preclearance and supported the Attorney General’s regulation. Justice Thomas concurred but warned of practical problems under vote-dilution law.