Ga. PSC Elections Decision Risks 'Avalanche' of States Dodging Voting Rights Act, SCOTUS Told
The U.S. Supreme Court should review an elections case against the Georgia Public Service Commission because the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals diverged from other circuits and since the case could have far-reaching effects, petitioners said in a reply…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
brief Tuesday. The group of Black voters seek SCOTUS review of the 11th Circuit finding that elections must remain statewide for the Georgia PSC’s five members, who represent five separate districts. Georgia called the case, involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a “splitless dispute” in a May 28 brief (see 2405290009). However, petitioners argued Tuesday that the 11th is the only circuit that has required challengers of an election method to offer a satisfactory alternative that doesn't alter the state's chosen government model. "By putting remedy first, and restricting the plaintiffs from proposing any remedies that change 'the state’s chosen model of government,' ... the panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims notwithstanding the district court’s detailed findings of compactness, cohesion, racial polarization, and lack of minority representation on the PSC.” The 8th Circuit didn't apply such a restriction on what alternative could be proposed in a similar 2006 case, Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, said the voter group. Also, the petitioners disagreed with Georgia’s argument that the 11th Circuit decision’s impact was limited to the Georgia PSC. "Any Section 2 challenge to at-large elections at any level, so long as they have some arguable basis in state law (as almost all do), can now be defeated at the outset simply because” a plaintiff’s proposed remedy “would necessarily alter the State’s chosen electoral model,” they said. “Failing to intervene now to reverse the decision … risks an ‘avalanche’ of States retreating to at-large election schemes at all levels of government that would dodge the oversight Congress intended when it drafted and enacted Section 2."