U.S. Supreme Court to hear two appeals on 'race politics'

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court agreed today to focus on the lingering role of race in American life and to decide whether to strike down laws that give special protections to minorities in the workplace and in the voting booth.

The justices, meeting privately, voted to hear two appeals that could signal a far-reaching change in civil rights laws. The court's action also could put it on a collision course with the incoming Obama administration.

In one case, the court said it would hear an appeal brought by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who were passed over for promotions even though they had earned the best scores on a civil service test.

The city later scrapped the test and promoted three African Americans to supervisory posts in the Fire Department. When the white employees sued, a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court ruled for the city. The judges said federal civil rights law forbids the use of tests that have a "disproportionate racial impact" on minorities.

In their appeal, the white firefighters said they were victims of "race politics," and they urged the Supreme Court to rule that employers must follow an equal treatment standard, without regard to race, in its testing and promotion policies.

The case, Ricci vs. Destefano, poses an early test for the incoming administration. Its lawyers could intervene in the case, either to defend a broad view of federal law that permits employers to consider race in seeking diversity in the workplace, or to adopt an equal treatment rule.

In the second case, the court agreed to hear a major constitutional challenge to part of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. That measure was credited with giving blacks in the South both the right to vote and their fair share of political power.

One part of the law requires most states, cities and other districts in much of the South to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge in Washington before making changes in election rules.

The rules subject to approval from Washington range widely. They include the locations of polling places, the places where voters can register, or the boundaries of election districts for city councils, county boards or state legislatures.

This provision, Section 5 of the law, was reauthorized by Congress three years ago, and it was given a 25-year extension. But many Southern officials have chafed at the "pre-clearance" provision, saying it is outdated and unfair.

The high court today voted to hear a challenge brought by lawyers for a water district in Austin, Texas. They derided this provision of the Voting Rights Act as the "most federally invasive law in existence." They said Congress was not justified in consigning "broad swaths of the nation to apparently perpetual federal receivership based on 40-year-old evidence."

Civil rights lawyers, however, say the Voting Rights Act and its special provisions are needed to deter sudden changes in election rules designed to diminish the voting power of African Americans. The law also extends to several counties in California and elsewhere that have a high percentage of Spanish-speaking residents.

Both cases will be heard in April and decided by the summer.

david.savage@latimes.com