Breaking News

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Monday about the federal government's authority to block the governor of Alabama's appointment of a fellow Republican to a vacant county commission seat representing a mostly black and heavily Democratic district.

The case is over whether Gov. Bob Riley needed clearance from the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires Alabama and several other states - most of them in the South - to get federal approval before changing election procedures that affect minority voters.

Alabama did not directly challenge the law, and the state's lead attorney acknowledged during oral arguments Monday that it was an "oddball" case with peculiar circumstances. But critics view the state's litigation as an effort to chip away at federal protections for minority voters.

In 2005, Riley appointed Juan Chastang, a black Republican, to a Mobile County Commission seat made vacant when Commissioner Sam Jones became Mobile's first black mayor.

Local Democrats challenged the appointment, arguing that a special election should have been held as in the past and that Riley's decision amounted to just the kind of voting-rights change that requires Justice Department approval.

Last January, the Justice Department agreed and said Riley's appointment appeared to weaken minority voters. Later, a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Montgomery ruled that Riley's move was unlawful and vacated the appointment.

Merceria Ludgood, a black Democrat, then defeated Chastang in a special election.

In appealing the case, Riley has cited language in the state constitution providing for gubernatorial appointments in such cases, arguing that his decision to appoint a new commissioner was in line with state law all along, including at the time the Voting Rights Act was passed. Special elections were established only after subsequent legislation and litigation in the mid-1980s, and they were quickly struck down by the Alabama Supreme Court as violating the state constitution.

Appearing receptive to the argument, several justices questioned whether Riley's appointment in the Mobile case amounted to a change warranting federal intervention.

"Why did Alabama have to pre-clear anything?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked, emphasizing that the Voting Rights Act only requires approval for changes to voting practices "in force or effect" on Nov. 1, 1964.

Attorneys for Democrats - who were backed by voting-rights groups - argued that allowing the change to stand would carve out an exception in which voting changes made by state courts would be accepted without federal review, even if they were discriminatory.

But several justices appeared skeptical, suggesting that if the Democrats were to win, Riley would be held to a system of special elections that the state's highest court has ruled violate state law.

"That's very odd," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

After the hearing, Pamela Karlan, an attorney for the Democrats, said many of the justices seemed to have fundamental questions about the Voting Rights Act.

"We have a court that is very skeptical of the act," Karlan said.

Riley, who has cast the case as a battle for state sovereignty, said he was encouraged.

Along with Alabama, the states covered by the act are Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Arizona and Alaska. Specific counties or towns in seven other states - California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota - are also covered.

The case is Riley v. Kennedy, 07-77.