By Joan Biskupic
Dec 4 (Reuters) - Although not a lawyer, Edward Blum works
behind the scenes to find people to sue over racial policies and
then recruits a legal team. Following are Supreme Court cases in
which he has had a strong hand:
* Fisher v. Texas (heard Oct. 10; ruling expected by June).
The case tests the constitutionality of a race-based affirmative
action program at the University of Texas; Blum enlisted Abigail
Fisher, a young white woman who was denied admission to the
Austin flagship campus, to challenge the program.
* Shelby County v. Holder (accepted Nov. 9; arguments likely
to be in early 2013 with a decision by June). The case
challenges a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that
requires nine states and seven municipalities, mainly in the
South, to clear any proposed election changes with the U.S.
Department of Justice. Blum tracked down and persuaded Shelby
County officials to challenge the law known as Section 5.
* Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v.
Holder (decided 2009). The case tested the Voting Rights Act's
screening requirement. Blum helped finance the legal
representation of a small utility district in Texas protesting
Section 5. The court ruled the district was eligible for an
exemption from Section 5 and avoided the larger constitutional
question. That was a blow to Blum's effort to win court
rejection of Section 5. He immediately sought out another entity
to challenge the screening requirement, looking for a place that
had faced recent Department of Justice complaints about
discriminatory electoral practices so that it could not win an
exemption as the utility district had; Blum's search led to the
Shelby County case.
* Bush v. Vera (decided 1996). The case challenged "majority
black" and "majority Hispanic" congressional districts drawn by
Texas officials as part of a broader federal effort in the early
1990s to enhance the voting power of minorities; Blum, one of
six plaintiffs, brought the lawsuit after he ran for the U.S.
House of Representatives unsuccessfully in a Houston area
district; he said he realized as he walked the district talking
to voters that its boundaries were highly irregular to sweep in
as many blacks as possible. Blum and the other plaintiffs said
the districts violated constitutional equality principles. Blum
lost his election but won the court case. The justices ruled
that Texas officials wrongly used race as a leading factor in
drawing lines and they ordered districts recrafted. Blum did not
run again but rather began seeking out other voters and
candidates to challenge so-called "majority-minority" districts
elsewhere.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook