Cite as: 538 U. S. 254 (2003)
Opinion of O'Connor, J.
ment that Congress " 'clearly intended' " § 2c " 'as a substitute' " for § 2a(c) is untenable. Ante, at 285, n. 1; Posadas v. National City Bank, supra, at 503. Cf. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 134 (1974) (" 'Presumably Congress had given serious thought to the earlier statute . . . . Before holding that the result of the earlier consideration has been repealed or qualified, it is reasonable for a court to insist on the legislature's using language showing that it has made a considered determination to that end' ").
Justice Stevens' strongest argument is that the legislative history indicates that "all parties involved were operating under the belief that the changes they were debating would completely replace § 2a(c)." Ante, at 290. Yet Justice Stevens acknowledges that Congress could have expressly repealed § 2a(c). See ante, at 287-288, 291-292. Justice Stevens thinks the evidence that Congress tried to expressly repeal § 2a(c) four times cuts strongly in favor of an implied repeal here. See ante, at 292. But these four attempts to repeal § 2a(c) were unsuccessful. It is difficult to conclude that Congress can impliedly repeal a statute when it deliberately chose not to expressly repeal that statute. In this case, where the two provisions have co-existed historically, and where Congress explicitly rejected an express repeal of § 2a(c), I would not find an implied repeal of § 2a(c).
I would hold instead that Congress passed § 2c in 1967 to restore redistricting law to its pre-1941 status, when § 2a(c) became effective without any complementary provision regarding single-member districts. The floor statements and colloquy by Senators Baker and Bayh cited by Justice Stevens, see ante, at 290, n. 5, cannot overcome the strong presumption against implied repeals, especially given the historical evidence that §§ 2c and 2a(c) had peacefully coexisted since the 19th century. And as explained in more detail in Part II-B, infra, the circumstances leading up to the passage of § 2c in 1967 do not support a finding of implied repeal.
297
Page: Index Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007