Perdue argues against law, says times and state have changed

Gov. Sonny Perdue is supporting Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One in its Supreme Court challenge to the Voting Rights Act, filing a so-called “friend of the court” brief setting forth his objections.

Perdue’s March brief argues that Georgia is no longer the state it was in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was first approved by Congress. It cites as proof the performance of African-American politicians in Georgia, including Barack Obama, who received 47 percent of the state’s vote in the November election.

The brief also questions the fairness of the law. States subject to supervision of their election practices under the act can petition to be released from federal control. But Perdue’s brief argues that it is almost impossible to compile the required record of strict compliance because misconduct by a single small jurisdiction —- a school board or a city council —- disqualifies them for a decade.

Though Georgia’s Jim Crow laws are history, voting rights disputes are not. Most recently, opponents fought a protracted court battle over a state law requiring that voters present photo IDs when they go to the polls, contending it would suppress voting by the poor and minorities. And Georgia’s congressional delegation was deeply divided during the 2006 fight over renewing the Voting Rights Act. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, was a leader of the renewal drive, while one its most vocal opponents was Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Coweta County Republican.

Perdue’s brief itself has been the subject of divisiveness. It was drawn up by Anne Lewis, deputy counsel for the state GOP, after Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat and an African-American, refused.

Earlier this month, the state’s Legislative Black Caucus sent a letter to Perdue and entities including the U.S. Justice Department disputing his brief’s contention. It contends the growth in the number of blacks elected officials in Georgia is not the result of a decline in racially polarized voting, but the creation of largely black voting districts —- a direct result of the act.

Staff writers Jim Galloway and Bill Steiden contributed to this article.