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
DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Keith’s dissent and eloquent defense of the laudable goals of the Voting Rights Act, as amended. I write separately, however, to underscore my firm belief and fervent hope that the majority’s decision today is guided only by a failure to adhere to the spirit and the letter of that Act and the analysis mandated in Thornburg v. Cingles, 478 U.S. 30 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 , 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), and not by any improper or unjust intent.