States' rights survive High Court challenges.

Ruling on a number of cases significant to states, the U.S. Supreme Court moved to strengthen states' autonomy in reapportionment, elections and the operation of federal programs. It nixed state laws requiring drug testing for candidates and taxing out-of-state charities.

In a victory for the 16 states that must get prior approval before changing their electoral districts, the Supreme Court has reined in the Justice Department's power to use this authority to force adoption of new "majority-minority" voting districts.

Unquestionably the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives federal authorities the power to "freeze" changes that will reduce the number of minority representatives. For example, if a county's seven-member school board proposed a redistricting plan that would likely reduce the number of black representatives from two to one, that change cannot be implemented without the prior approval of the Justice Department. This "preclearance authority" is in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Over the past decade, however, the Justice Department's civil rights division has gone further and blocked redistricting plans because they fail to create new black-majority districts. Because Section 2 of the act forbids districting plans that "dilute" the voting strength of black and Hispanic communities, Justice Department lawyers have maintained they are also authorized to freeze changes that fail to increase minority representation where possible.

The Supreme. Court disagreed. The two sections of the law "combat different evils and accordingly impose very different duties upon the states," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the 7-2 majority. The preclearance power has a "limited purpose" and "is designed to combat only those effects that are retrogressive," she said. To force states, counties, cities and school boards to litigate over the impact of their reapportionments before they even take effect "is to increase further the serious federalism costs already implicated," she added.

The ruling clarifies the law, but does not break new ground, O'Connor insisted. Without a doubt, however, the Justice Department had operated on a different understanding of the statute. The impact of the Court's ruling will likely be felt in four or five years when states begin the next round of reapportionments.

The May 12 decision, arising from a Louisiana school board dispute, is the latest in a series of rulings that have eased the pressure to create more majority-minority electoral districts.

In early rulings from North Carolina, Georgia and Texas, the Court has said states cannot use race as a "predominant factor" for drawing district lines. This sort of "racial gerrymandering" is unconstitutional, the Court has said. Meanwhile, in cases from Florida and now Louisiana, the Court has stressed that the Voting Rights Act does not require states to "maximize" the number of districts with a black or Hispanic majority.

The Justice Department's preclearance authority applies to all or parts of 16 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

The most recent case arose from the reapportionment in Bossier Parish in northwestern Louisiana. In 1990, the school board had 12 members, all of whom were white and were elected from white-majority districts. Districtwide, about 20 percent of the population was black.

Because of population shifts shown by the 1990 census, the school board redrew its lines in 1992. It rejected a proposal offered by the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that would have created two majority-black districts. Instead, it followed a proposal closer to its existing districts that retained white majorities in all 12 districts.

In August 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno rejected the board's plan, saying it represented a "dear violation" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The redrawn lines "unnecessarily limit the opportunity for minority voters to elect their candidates of choice," she said.

The Supreme Court, ruling in Reno vs. Bossier Parish School Board, said the attorney general had erred by mixing the two parts of the law. However, the Court makes clear that the Justice Department and private civil attorneys remain free to challenge the district plan as illegal after it has taken effect.

In dissent, Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Sourer said it is "astonishing" the Court would tell the attorney general "to place her stamp of approval on a state action that is in clear violation of federal law."

GEORGIA LAW STRUCK DOWN

Meanwhile, in another test of state powers, the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law that required all candidates for state office to submit to drug tests. The 1990 law was the nation's only such measure, but it also marked the first time the high court has thrown out a drug-testing law as unconstitutional.

Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said forced drug tests are justified only when there is a "concrete danger," such as a risk to public safety. Train engineers and police officers with guns can be tested, for example. However, she said the Court will not allow "suspicionless searches" of large numbers of employees simply to send a message or "set a good example."

"However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake," she wrote in Chandler vs. Miller. "The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action."

The test has been challenged, appropriately enough, by a Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor, Walker L. Chandler. He submitted a urinalysis under protest in 1994. Though he failed with the voters, he represented himself in the federal court and eventually succeeded in the Supreme Court.

"It's an asinine law," Chandler said of the drug-testing measure. "Alcoholism is the worst problem among politicians, and that's not being tested for. And there's no test for intelligence. Or ethics. Or the main addiction in political society - power."

FUSION CANDIDATES OUT

There were other recent rulings of significance for the states.

* The high court overturned a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis that said states cannot bar nominees from appearing more than once on the ballot.

The 6-3 ruling in Timmons vs. Twin Cities Area New Party marks a setback for small, third parties that have sought to gain strength by allying themselves on occasion with a major party candidate.

During the 19th century, and particularly in the West and Midwest, issue-oriented parties such as the Grangers, the Greenbackers and the Populists gained power by allying themselves with the Democrats. But early in the 20th century, most states outlawed this practice and required that a candidate's name appear only once on the ballot.

A modern-day exception is New York state. The electoral technique known as "fusion" is still commonly employed there. For example, Ronald Reagan appeared on the state's 1980 ballot as the nominee of both the "Conservative" and "Republican" parties, and his combined votes gave him a statewide majority.

Some political scientists have touted fusion as a means of reinvigorating issue-oriented parties and infusing new energy and ideas into the dominant Republican and Democratic parties. Others say it would only sow factionalism. Some state officials say this system could be confusing to the voters and unfairly manipulated if access to the ballot is easy. They say the Democratic or Republican nominee could arrange to appear elsewhere on the ballot as the nominee of the "No New Taxes" Party or the "Get Tough on Crime" Party.

In Minnesota, the left-leaning New Party challenged that state's ban on fusion or "cross filing." In April 1994, state Representative Andy Dawkins was running for reelection as a candidate of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, one of the state's two main parties. That same month, the Twin Cities Area New Party nominated Dawkins as their candidate. But state election officials refused to accept the New Party's nominating petition, leading to the lawsuit.

Last year, the New Party won a ruling from the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis declaring the Minnesota restriction unconstitutional. Had that ruling been upheld by the high court, nearly every state would have been forced to change its ballot laws.

Instead, the Supreme Court said the states have leeway "to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two-party system."

Certainly, citizens have a right to form parties, to advance their goals and to nominate candidates, explained Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. "On the other hand, it is also clear that states may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, election and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related disorder." In this case, the state's "valid interests in ballot integrity and political stability" outweigh the rights of third parties, he concluded. Justices Stevens, Sourer and Ginsburg dissented.

ALL CHARITIES THE SAME

* The Court struck down an unusual Maine law that voided property tax exemptions for charities and nonprofit groups that served mostly out-of-state clients. On a 5-4 vote, the Court said the Constitution protects both a free flow of goods across state lines, but also the free flow of customers between states.

Maine's law included the usual real estate tax exemption for "benevolent and charitable institutions" incorporated in the state, but it also disqualified "institutions that in fact [are] conducted or operated principally for the benefit of persons who are not residents of Maine."

The law was challenged by a summer church camp for Christian Scientists that was obliged to pay property taxes to the town of Harrison. The state Supreme Court upheld the tax, but the camp appealed.

The case of Camps Newfound vs. Harrison took on national importance. A coalition of private colleges, charities and nonprofit groups urged the Court to strike down the law. Otherwise, it would clear the way for states and localities to void their tax exemptions if they served a national clientele.

"A tax on real estate, like any other state tax, may impermissibly burden interstate commerce," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. Maine's tax law violates "the barrier against protectionism that the Constitution provides," he said.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Maine law was "an application of the principle that charity begins at home." Also siding with the state were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

PROTECTING STATE FLEXIBILITY

* The Court also overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that would have cleared the way for class action suits against states that fail to collect most child support owed to custodial parents.

Congress did not give parents "a federal right" to money or services when it funded state child support enforcement programs, said Justice O'Connor for a unanimous court. Rather, it created "an interlocking set of cooperative federal-state welfare programs" that are intended to serve these parents in general, but not to guarantee them results, she said.

The Arizona Department of Economic Security and its director, Linda Blessing, had been sued on behalf of some 275,000 parents in the state who were seeking help with child support. Congress had funded such state efforts since 1975. The legal question was whether this federal funding gave the plaintiffs a federal right to sue seeking improved services.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the Arizona suit last year. Had the Supreme Court agreed, most states would probably have faced such claims. Instead, the high court in Blessing vs. Freestone reversed the appeals court and indicated that improvements in the program must come through the efforts of state and federal officials, not through direct oversight by federal judges.

Editor's note: September's State Legislatures profiles other Supreme Court decisions that will affect the states.

David G. Savage is the Supreme Court corespondent for the Los Angeles Times and author of Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court.