Opinion ID: 711104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Department of Justice Preclearance

Text: 42 The Supreme Court in Miller also criticized the Justice Department's preclearance procedures and found it inappropriate for a court engaged in constitutional scrutiny to accord deference to the Justice Department's interpretation of the Act. Miller, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2491. The Court found that the Justice Department had been driven by the objectionable policy of maximizing the number of majority black districts rather than grounding its objections [to proposed plans] on evidence of a discriminatory purpose. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2492. In utilizing Sec. 5 to require States to create majority-minority districts wherever possible, the Department of Justice expanded its authority under the statute beyond what Congress intended and we have upheld. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2493. 43 When a federal court reviews a redistricting plan, it intrudes on the most vital of local functions and must accord legislatures the presumption of good faith until a claimant makes a showing sufficient to support [its] allegation that the legislature's decisionmaking is race-based. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2488. The district court made every attempt to defer to the legislature when approving the 1992 and 1993 plans, but the court found itself thwarted at each turn by the Attorney General's rejection of those plans. 44 Although we acknowledge that the district court in this case must have been frustrated by the Attorney General's rejection of two plans that the court believed to be adequate remedies, the district court's heavy reliance on finding a plan that will satisfy the concerns of the Attorney General conflicts with the admonition of Miller: 45 [O]rdinarily the court would take seriously concerns about packing minorities into districts. In this situation, however, the Attorney General objected to a district with a black voting age population of 63% because of, among other factors, the reduced electoral participation by black persons, which is traceable to a history of discrimination; therefore, any plan the court adopts to cure that objection will necessarily contain districts with a great many blacks. 46 Dillard, 865 F.Supp. at 778. From the district court's order, it is difficult to infer anything other than that the purpose of adopting Dillard's plan was to satisfy the Attorney General.