292
Opinion of O'Connor, J.
of a clause expressly repealing § 2a(c) was simply an inadvertence. Canons of statutory construction—such as the presumption against implied repeals or the presumption against pre-emption—are often less reliable guides in the search for congressional intent than a page or two of history.
* * *
The history of the 1967 statute, coupled with the plain language of its text, leads to only one conclusion—Congress impliedly repealed § 2a(c). It is far wiser to give effect to the manifest intent of Congress than, as the plurality attempts, to engage in tortured judicial legislation to preserve a remnant of an obsolete federal statute and an equally obsolete state statute. Accordingly, while I concur in the Court's judgment and opinion, I do not join Parts III-B or IV of the plurality opinion.
Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion because I agree that the Mississippi Chancery Court's redistricting plan lacks preclearance. I join Part II-C because it is consistent with our decisions holding that federal courts should not rule on a constitutional challenge to a nonprecleared voting change when the change is not yet capable of implementation. See, e. g., Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam); see also ante, p. 282 (Kennedy, J., concurring). I cannot join Part III or Part IV, however, because I disagree with the Court that 2 U. S. C. § 2c is a command to the States and I disagree with the plurality regarding the proper statutory construction of § 2a(c)(5).
I
First, I agree with the plurality's somewhat reluctant conclusion that § 2c does not impliedly repeal § 2a(c)(5). Here, it is quite easy to read §§ 2c and 2a(c) together. A natural statutory reading of § 2a(c) gives force to both §§ 2c and 2a(c):
Page: Index Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007