[h=3]By JESS BRAVIN AND BRENT KENDALL[/h]WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court agreed to settle constitutional disputes over voting rights and DNA privacy, adding to the list of marquee cases in its 2012-13 term.
The court said it would review whether a core provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains constitutional, and it agreed to decide whether law enforcement officials can collect DNA samples without a search warrant from suspects arrested for serious crimes.
This term is shaping up as another busy one, with a major university affirmative-action case already on the docket and cases on gay marriage likely to be added soon.
The voting-rights case comes from Shelby County, Ala., which says the official racism that prompted the Voting Rights Act was eradicated long ago and can no longer justify what officials there consider intrusive federal oversight of local affairs.
Section 5 of the act requires state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge before changing election procedures. Three years ago, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate the challenged provision. But the 8-1 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, indicated that unless Congress amended Section 5 or found stronger ground to justify it, the provision might not survive future Supreme Court review.
Congress has done nothing since, amid a partisan divide over Section 5, and the new lawsuit seeks to press the discomfort with the provision, especially among the Supreme Court's conservative wing.
Shelby County argues that it and other covered jurisdictions have made extraordinary progress since the 1960s and '70s, and that the blatant discrimination they once enforced is long past. Minorities vote in numbers comparable to whites, they argue, and African-Americans now occupy many elective offices. Critics say the Justice Department has used its preclearance powers too aggressively, for example by blocking several voter-identification laws.
Lower courts, however, rejected Shelby County's arguments, finding that Congress relied on a voluminous record of evidence in reauthorizing Section 5 powers in 2006. The Justice Department argues that while Congress may not have unlimited authority to intervene in state election laws, Section 5 falls well within its constitutional authority to protect the right to vote.
"As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common," said Laughlin McDonald of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices.
"While the [Voting Rights Act] was a necessary and appropriate response to conditions in the 1960s, the pre-clearance requirement of the law has outlived its original purpose," said Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, who filed a brief with other Southern states urging the court to take the case.
In the DNA case, the issue is the privacy rights of a suspect vs. the needs of crime investigators. In 2009, authorities in Maryland collected genetic information from a suspect named Alonzo King Jr. through a cheek swab when he was arrested on assault charges. Mr. King's DNA proved a match with DNA collected at the scene of a 2003 rape, and he was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the rape.
Maryland's highest court overturned Mr. King's conviction in a divided opinion, finding the DNA collection unconstitutional. It said the police had no need of Mr. King's DNA to be confident that they had apprehended the right man on the assault charges for which he was arrested.
The appeals court said the collection of a suspect's DNA was different than the traditional method of taking his fingerprints because a suspect's DNA provides a "vast genetic treasure map" to the state. The court also said the case would have been different if the state was collecting DNA from someone already convicted and incarcerated—because that person has a greatly diminished expectation of privacy.
Two dissenting judges said arrestees already have diminished privacy rights even before they are convicted, noting that suspects can be searched from head-to-toe and strip-searched upon entering a local jail.
Oral arguments in both cases are likely to take place early next year with decisions expected by the end of June.
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] and Brent Kendall at [email protected]
The court said it would review whether a core provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains constitutional, and it agreed to decide whether law enforcement officials can collect DNA samples without a search warrant from suspects arrested for serious crimes.
This term is shaping up as another busy one, with a major university affirmative-action case already on the docket and cases on gay marriage likely to be added soon.
The voting-rights case comes from Shelby County, Ala., which says the official racism that prompted the Voting Rights Act was eradicated long ago and can no longer justify what officials there consider intrusive federal oversight of local affairs.
Section 5 of the act requires state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge before changing election procedures. Three years ago, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate the challenged provision. But the 8-1 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, indicated that unless Congress amended Section 5 or found stronger ground to justify it, the provision might not survive future Supreme Court review.
Congress has done nothing since, amid a partisan divide over Section 5, and the new lawsuit seeks to press the discomfort with the provision, especially among the Supreme Court's conservative wing.
Shelby County argues that it and other covered jurisdictions have made extraordinary progress since the 1960s and '70s, and that the blatant discrimination they once enforced is long past. Minorities vote in numbers comparable to whites, they argue, and African-Americans now occupy many elective offices. Critics say the Justice Department has used its preclearance powers too aggressively, for example by blocking several voter-identification laws.
Lower courts, however, rejected Shelby County's arguments, finding that Congress relied on a voluminous record of evidence in reauthorizing Section 5 powers in 2006. The Justice Department argues that while Congress may not have unlimited authority to intervene in state election laws, Section 5 falls well within its constitutional authority to protect the right to vote.
"As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common," said Laughlin McDonald of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices.
"While the [Voting Rights Act] was a necessary and appropriate response to conditions in the 1960s, the pre-clearance requirement of the law has outlived its original purpose," said Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, who filed a brief with other Southern states urging the court to take the case.
In the DNA case, the issue is the privacy rights of a suspect vs. the needs of crime investigators. In 2009, authorities in Maryland collected genetic information from a suspect named Alonzo King Jr. through a cheek swab when he was arrested on assault charges. Mr. King's DNA proved a match with DNA collected at the scene of a 2003 rape, and he was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the rape.
Maryland's highest court overturned Mr. King's conviction in a divided opinion, finding the DNA collection unconstitutional. It said the police had no need of Mr. King's DNA to be confident that they had apprehended the right man on the assault charges for which he was arrested.
The appeals court said the collection of a suspect's DNA was different than the traditional method of taking his fingerprints because a suspect's DNA provides a "vast genetic treasure map" to the state. The court also said the case would have been different if the state was collecting DNA from someone already convicted and incarcerated—because that person has a greatly diminished expectation of privacy.
Two dissenting judges said arrestees already have diminished privacy rights even before they are convicted, noting that suspects can be searched from head-to-toe and strip-searched upon entering a local jail.
Oral arguments in both cases are likely to take place early next year with decisions expected by the end of June.
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] and Brent Kendall at [email protected]