skip navigation
search

BARTLETT v. STRICKLAND (No. 07-689)
361 N. C. 491, 649 S. E. 2d 364, affirmed.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Kennedy]
Concurrence
[Thomas]
Dissent
[Souter]
Dissent
[Ginsburg]
Dissent
[Breyer]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

556 U. S. ____ (2009)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GARY BARTLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
et al., PETITIONERS v. DWIGHT
STRICKLAND et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of north carolina


[March 9, 2009]

    Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring in the judgment.

    I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my opinion in Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 891 (1994) (opinion concurring in judgment). The text of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not authorize any vote dilution claim, regardless of the size of the minority population in a given district. See 42 U. S. C. §1973(a) (2000 ed.) (permitting only a challenge to a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure”); see also Holder, supra, at 893 (stating that the terms “ ‘standard, practice, or procedure’ ” “reach only state enactments that limit citizens’ access to the ballot”). I continue to disagree, therefore, with the framework set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) , for analyzing vote dilution claims because it has no basis in the text of §2. I would not evaluate any Voting Rights Act claim under a test that “has produced such a disastrous misadventure in judicial policymaking.” Holder, supra, at 893. For these reasons, I concur only in the judgment.