US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Bartlett v. Strickland 556 U. S. ____
Subscribe to Cases that cite 556 U. S. ____Syllabus
Opinion [Justice Kennedy]
Concurrence [Justice Thomas]
Dissent [Justice Souter]
Dissent [Justice Ginsburg]
Dissent [Justice Breyer,]
556 U. S. ____ (2009)
556 U. S. ____ (2009)
556 U. S. ____ (2009)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 07-689
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.
