Yesterday I brought you MALDEF’s take on Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder. Today I’m talking to Greg Coleman, who represented the utility district.
Texas Lawyer: Many constitutional lawyers speculated that the Supreme Court might roll back the Voting Rights Act after oral arguments were completed in the case. Were you surprised by the ruling?
Greg Coleman: No. We offered the court two clear paths to exempt the district from the burdens of preclearance. The court chose the bailout path but the clear win is not a surprise.
TL: Civil rights attorneys are claiming victory in this case. Are you claiming victory as well?
Coleman: A combatant who suffers a clear loss but averts complete disaster is not entitled to declare victory. There is only one winner in this case.
TL: Is this case an indication that the Supreme Court may reach the constitutional questions of whether the Voting Rights Act is even necessary in the future?
Coleman: The court sent a clear message to the federal government that future abuses of the preclearance and bailout processes will almost certainly cause the court to carefully scrutinize the constitutionality of Section 5.
TL: What does this case mean for Texas?
Coleman: It means that political subdivisions throughout the state that have complied with the mandates of the Voting Rights Act for many years will now be eligible to lift the stigma of continuing preclearance coverage.
-- John Council
Comments