holding that the amendments to the Voting Rights Act did “not ... reflect a broad and boundless ‘trend’ to expand the Act to protect classes not described in the Act, or to protect combinations of classes not described in the Act”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the amendments to the Voting Rights Act did “not ... reflect a broad and boundless ‘trend’ to expand the Act to protect classes not described in the Act, or to protect combinations of classes not described in the Act”
- ruling against aggregating minority groups to meet first Gingles condition
- Courts “must interpret the statute as a whole, making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless, or superfluous.”
- “Where the language of a statute is ambiguous, this Court reviews the legislative history because the ‘cardinal canon of statutory construction [is] that statutes should be interpreted harmoniously with their dominant legislative purpose.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Judge Keith has very ably stated my position in sections I, II and IIIA of his dissent, and I join with him in those parts. I also join Judge Jones’ dissent for it speaks so well to our loss of an historic perspective in this most vital issue of the right to vote for a candidate of one’s choice.