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 Ginsburg, dissenting.

    I join Justice Souter’s powerfully persuasive dissenting opinion, and would make concrete what is implicit in his exposition. The plurality’s interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is difficult to fathom and severely undermines the statute’s estimable aim. Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court. The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of §2.