## Facts

- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One was a small Texas utility district with an elected board.
- Because it was located in Texas, a jurisdiction covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), the district was subject to VRA § 5’s preclearance requirement for changes in election practices.
- The district asserted there was no evidence it had discriminated on the basis of race in its elections.
- The district sued seeking (1) a declaration that it could “bail out” from § 5 coverage under VRA § 4(a), and (2) alternatively, a ruling that § 5 was unconstitutional if the statute made the district ineligible for bailout.
- A three-judge federal district court held bailout was unavailable because the district did not register voters and upheld the 2006 reauthorization of § 5.
- The district appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the district qualifies as a “political subdivision” eligible to seek bailout under VRA § 4(a) even though it does not register voters.
2. Whether VRA § 5, as reauthorized in 2006, exceeds Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court construed the VRA to allow the district to seek bailout as a “political subdivision” under § 4(a), even though it does not register voters.
- Applying constitutional avoidance, the Court declined to decide whether § 5 is unconstitutional.
- Justice Thomas concurred as to bailout eligibility but would have reached the constitutional question and held § 5 unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Courts ordinarily avoid deciding constitutional questions when a case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds.
- For § 4(a) bailout, “political subdivision” is read to include covered local governmental units subject to § 5, not only counties/parishes or voter-registering entities.
- Section 5 preclearance imposes substantial federalism costs and must be justified by present conditions, but the Court did not decide the validity of § 5 in this case.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a covered Texas utility district could apply for bailout from VRA § 5 under § 4(a) and, because that statutory interpretation resolved the dispute, the Court refused to rule on § 5’s constitutionality while noting serious constitutional concerns about continuing burdens and unequal state treatment.


Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009)