Court Opinion

ID: 9428394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:36.954249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:09.122173
License: Public Domain

Justice Stewart,
with whom Justice Rehnquist joins,
dissenting.
In East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636, 638-639, n. 6, the Court expressly stated that a reapportionment scheme which is submitted and adopted pursuant to a court order does not have to be approved through the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This statement represented the deliberate and considered view of the Court, as demonstrated by the presence of a separate opinion in the case questioning the Court’s resolution of the issue. See id., at 640 (concurring opinion). Because I believe that what the Court said in the East Carroll case expressly controls the result in this case, I respectfully dissent.