Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

2000-01-24

Headline: Court limits Voting Rights Act preclearance: §5 blocks only redistricting with intent to reduce minority voting strength, allowing discriminatory but nonretrogressive plans to be precleared and shifting challenges to other lawsuits.

Holding: In this case the Court held that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act bars preclearance only when a redistricting plan was adopted with intent to cause retrogression in minority voting strength, not for discriminatory but nonretrogressive purposes.

Real World Impact:

Allows covered jurisdictions to obtain preclearance despite discriminatory motives if no retrogression.
Shifts many racial-dilution challenges from preclearance to §2 or constitutional lawsuits.
Limits federal review before changes, increasing reliance on later court challenges.

Topics: voting rules, redistricting, voting rights, racial gerrymandering

Summary

Background

Bossier Parish School Board, the local NAACP leader, and the U.S. Attorney General disputed a 1992 school-board redistricting plan. The Board adopted a plan identical to a nearby governing body's plan that had been precleared. The NAACP proposed maps with one or two majority‑black districts. The Attorney General objected, saying new information showed majority‑black districts were possible; the Board sued for judicial preclearance. The Board conceded the plan had no retrogressive effect (it did not make minority voters worse off than before) but denied it had a discriminatory purpose.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act forbids preclearance when a plan was adopted for a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. Reading the statute and prior cases (especially Beer), the majority held that the word “abridging” in §5, when applied to proposed changes, is measured against the status quo and therefore the “purpose” prong reaches only intent to cause retrogression in minority voting strength. Because the Board’s plan produced no retrogressive effect, §5 did not bar preclearance. The Court emphasized that constitutional or §2 claims remain available afterward in ordinary lawsuits.

Real world impact

The decision means covered jurisdictions may obtain preclearance for changes that are discriminatory in motive so long as they do not reduce minority voting strength below the existing baseline. People and groups upset by such motives must pursue later legal challenges (for example under §2 or the Constitution) rather than relying on §5 preclearance to block the change in advance. The ruling affirms the District Court judgment in these cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Four Justices dissented or partly dissented, arguing §5 should bar plans adopted with discriminatory intent even when not retrogressive and citing history and the Justice Department’s practice. Justice Thomas concurred separately, noting election outcomes during the litigation.