Racial redistricting approach upheld

WASHINGTON - Georgia and other states with a history of racial discrimination won more leeway Thursday from the Supreme Court in drawing political boundaries in areas heavily populated by minorities.

The 5-4 ruling, which addressed three state Senate districts in Georgia, could have major implications on other states required to get federal approval for their redistricting plans under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

While acknowledging that racial makeup of districts still must be a factor, the court said it should not be the only factor.

In the Georgia case, the Legislature - then under Democratic control - reduced the number of blacks in the three Senate districts but kept all three with a black voting age population above 50 percent. That virtually guaranteed victory for candidates preferred by blacks.

Georgia argued that although the changes might have slightly reduced the likelihood of black voters electing candidates of their choice, they increased chances of electing Democrats more favorable to blacks in neighboring districts. The Supreme Court largely agreed and overturned a lower court ruling that required the Legislature to redraw the three districts. Those changes helped swing control of the Georgia Senate to Republicans last year.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, said the law "as properly interpreted, should encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters: a society where integration and color-blindness are not just qualities to be proud of, but are simple facts of life."

The Bush administration had challenged Georgia's three districts in court, arguing they amounted to the unconstitutional "retrogression" of black voters.

The court dealt a serious defeat on Thursday to prosecutors who pursue suspects accused of molesting children, ruling 5-4 that the government cannot erase statutes of limitations retroactively.

The decision may overturn as many as 800 child molestation convictions in California, some of them involving Roman Catholic priests, and bar the prosecution of dozens of other pending cases. It also puts in doubt the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act, which retroactively withdrew statutes of limitations in terrorism cases.

The decision struck down a California law enacted several years ago that allowed for prosecutions of people accused of committing sex crimes years before.

But the court said Thursday that the U.S. Constitution bars states from reviving legal deadlines that have already expired. Those deadlines, or statutes of limitations, vary by crime and from state to state. The most serious crimes have the longest statutes of limitations, and murder has none.

"We believe that this retroactive application of a later-enacted law is unfair," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority in the case of Marion Stogner, who was charged in 1998 with having molested his children almost a half-century before. Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with him.

Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, declaring that California ought to be able to punish serious sex offenses against children.

The court toughened standards for death-penalty defense lawyers Thursday when it struck down a Maryland man's sentence, saying his attorneys failed him when they did not sufficiently investigate the horrible abuses he suffered as a child.

The 7-2 ruling means a new sentencing hearing for Kevin Wiggins of Baltimore, and could make it easier for hundreds of other death-row inmates to win federal reviews of their sentences.

The court agreed to review only whether Wiggins' lawyers acted properly; it did not consider whether he might be innocent.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright