On March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Bartlett v. Strickland that will impact voting districts nationwide. In Bartlett, the Court held in a 5-4 plurality decision that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not require state officials to draw election lines to create a crossover district when racial minorities comprise less than 50 percent of the district's voting-age population.

A crossover district is a district in which racial minorities are a significant percentage of the population, although less than 50 percent, and can elect their candidate of choice when some members of the majority population cross over and support their preferred candidate. A plurality decision is one in which some of the justices in the majority agreed with the outcome, but not with the reasoning. In Bartlett, three justices formed the plurality, and two additional justices concurred with the outcome but not the reasoning.

In Bartlett, the North Carolina legislature created a geographically compact district in which African Americans made up 39 percent of the district's voting age population. The legislature stated that its purpose was to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district that the legislature drew crossed over county lines, which violated the "Whole County Provision" of the North Carolina Constitution. A federal statute such as the Voting Rights Act, however, takes precedence over the state constitution. The crossover district did, in fact, result in an African American being elected to represent the area in the state legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision that "a minority group must constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in an area before Section 2 requires the creation of a legislative district to prevent dilution of that group's vote."

This narrow view of Section 2 may impact voting districts nationwide. While the "Whole County Provision" is unique to North Carolina, any state that has created a district in which a minority group is less than 50 percent of the population may see that district challenged.

In New Jersey, the state Republican Party is considering filing suit to have New Jersey legislative boundaries declared unconstitutional. Every 10 years, New Jersey redraws its legislative districts to make them equal in population based on the latest Census. The boundaries were last redrawn in 2001. The process was very contentious, as large, urban, heavily minority areas in Newark and Jersey City were combined with suburban areas, which resulted in more Democrats being elected. The state Republican Party filed suit, claiming that the "Democratic map violated the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act by 'diluting' the black vote," according to the Star Ledger. The state supreme court ruled against them. Mark Sheridan, general counsel to the New Jersey Legislature's Republicans, told the Star Ledger that the state map is unconstitutional. Donald Scarinci, Democratic counsel to the last redistricting commission, told the Star Ledger that additional court action has little chance of succeeding. He also said the map increased the number of minority legislators.

The biggest impact from the U.S. Supreme Court decision may occur after the 2010 Census, when legislatures across the county will use the Census results to redraw district boundaries. This is when districts that are geographically compact and in which minorities are a significant population, but not the majority, may be redrawn to diminish the possibility of electing a minority representative. Some states may have drawn heavily minority legislative districts solely because they were under the impression that Section 2 required it. However, Bartlett makes it clear that states are not required to consider race in drawing legislative districts where racial minorities are not the numerical majority. While they are still permitted to do so (unless it is prohibited for another reason, such as North Carolina's "Whole County Provision"), it remains to be seen how many states will choose to ensure that minorities are adequately represented without a federal requirement.

Redistricting battles have already begun to heat up in some states, such as Ohio. The board that currently decides Ohio legislative boundaries has five members – the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, a member appointed by the majority party's leaders, and a member appointed by the minority party's leaders – according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. This composition currently gives Democrats the majority on the board. Two Republican state senators have introduced a bill that would add more Republicans to the board. This is the type of Census-related redistricting battle that is starting to heat up, even without adding the newly restrictive version of Section 2 into the mix.

As a result of the Bartlett decision, it is more important than ever for nonprofits to ensure that underrepresented communities are adequately counted in the 2010 Census. The Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network (NVEN) recently announced the national kickoff of their Nonprofits Count! 2010 Campaign initiative. NVEN will soon be launching a website for the campaign, www.nonprofitscount.org, and will be hosting a webinar on April 1 on the role that 501(c)(3) organizations can play in the 2010 census.