Foreman v. Dallas County

Media Items
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
96-987
Appellee: 
Dallas County
Appellant: 
Foreman
Consolidation: 
No. 96-1389
Opinion: 
521 U.S. 979 (1997)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Foreman v. Dallas County , 521 U.S. 979 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_987)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1972, Texas became a covered jurisdiction for purposes of section 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965. By statute, Texas authorizes counties to appoint election judges, who supervise voting at the polls on election days. In 1983 and several times thereafter, Dallas County changed procedures for selecting election judges. Each of the new methods used party-affiliation formulas. In 1996, various parties brought suit in Federal District Court against the county, claiming that section 5 required the changes to be precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice. The District Court concluded that preclearance was not required, as the county had simply exercised its discretion under a state statute to adjust the procedure for appointing election judges. The court also noted that Department's preclearance of a 1985 submission from the state operated to preclear the county's use of partisan considerations in selecting election judges.

Question: 

Are Dallas County, Texas's changed procedures for selecting election judges exempt from preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Conclusion: 

No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the fact that the county had exercised its discretion, pursuant to state statute, to adjust the procedure for appointing election judges according to party power, did not mean that the methods at issue were exempt from section 5 preclearance. The Court also concluded that the county's 1985 submission was insufficient to put the Department on notice that the State was seeking preclearance of the use of partisan affiliations in selecting election judges. Ultimately, the Court remanded the case, noting that because the record was silent as to the procedure used by the county for appointing election judges as of 1972, it could make no final determination as to whether preclearance was in fact required.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Foreman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Per Curiam without Argument