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