The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Voting Rights Act of 1965 Arguments

Abrams v. Johnson - Oral Argument

Mon, 09 Dec 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Following a suit by Georgia residents challenging the constitutionality of a legislative redistricting plan (Miller v. Johnson, 515 US 900), and seeking an injunction against its further use, a District Court found the plan unconstitutional. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed - holding that race was a predominant factor in the plan's creation - and remanded it for redrafting. Shortly thereafter the composition of another of the plan's districts was challenged in a District Court which, after unsuccessfully deferring the matter to Georgia's Legislature for redrafting, drew its own plan creating one black-majority district in place of the proposed three. After the 1996 elections were held under the court's new plan, Abrams and several other voters challenged its constitutionality. Again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Beer v. United States - Oral Reargument

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Branch v. Smith - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:00:00 -0500

After the 2000 census caused Mississippi to lose one congressional seat, the State legislature failed to pass a new redistricting plan. Subsequently, lawsuits were filed in both the Mississippi State Chancery Court and the Federal District Court, asking that each court issue its own redistricting plan. While the federal court stayed its hand, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to issue a redistricting plan. The Chancery Court adopted such a plan, which was submitted for preclearance pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Meanwhile, the Federal District Court promulgated a plan that would fix the State's congressional districts for the 2002 elections should the state-court plan not be precleared by the state-law deadline. Ultimately, the District Court enjoined the State from using the state-court plan and ordered that its own plan be used in 2002 until the State produced a precleared, constitutional plan. The State did not appeal and no determination was made on the preclearance submission because the District Court's injunction rendered the state-court plan incapable of administration.

Briscoe v. Bell - Oral Argument

Wed, 20 Apr 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Chisom v. Roemer - Oral Argument

Mon, 22 Apr 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Clark v. Roemer - Oral Argument

Mon, 22 Apr 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Georgia v. Ashcroft - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500

Following the 2000 Census, the Democratic-controlled Georgia legislature passed a redistricting plan that was backed by many black leaders because it would have spread black voters and influence across several districts rather than concentrating them in a select few. Georgia's Republican governor objected to the plan because he said it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which discourages the dilution of minority voting strength. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the legislature's plan.

Holder, Individually And In His Official Capacity As County Commissioner For Bleckley County, Georgia v. Hall - Oral Argument

Mon, 04 Oct 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Houston Lawyers' Ass'n v. Texas Attorney Gen. - Oral Argument

Mon, 22 Apr 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Johnson, Speaker Of The Florida House Of Representatives v. De Grandy - Oral Argument

Mon, 04 Oct 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

League of Latin American Citizens v. Perry - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:00:00 -0500

In 2003, the Texas State Legislature passed a redistricting plan that replaced the one created by a federal judge following the 2000 census. Critics of the plan charged that it was unconstitutional and violated section 2 the Voting Rights Act because it diluted racial minority voting strength and was designed to maximize partisan advantage. A three-judge district court panel disagreed, finding that the plan was constitutional and that the legislature had the right to redistrict in 2003 using census data from 2000.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but while it was pending the Court decided Vieth v. Jubelirer, another redistricting case from Pennsylvania. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the deciding vote in that case, wrote that the Court could hear claims of partisan discrimination in redistricting cases, but left open the question of the test those claims would be subjected to.

The three-district panel in this case then affirmed its earlier decision, finding that the Texas redistricting plan was not substantively unfair.

Lockhart v. United States - Oral Argument

Wed, 03 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Lopez v. Monterey County - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Oct 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Because Monterey County, California is a jurisdiction covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it must obtain federal preclearance of any voting practice different from its practices on November 1, 1968. Between 1972 and 1983, the County merged its nine separate and independent inferior court districts into a single, countywide municipal court served by judges whom County residents elected at large. In 1991, five Hispanic voters, who resided in the County, sued, alleging that the County had violated section 5 by failing to obtain federal preclearance of its judicial district consolidation ordinances. The County did not submit its ordinances after a three-judge District Court ruled against it. Rather, the County began to work with the voters to develop a new judicial election plan. Ultimately, the District Court ordered the County to conduct judicial elections under an at-large, countywide election plan.

Lopez v. Monterey County - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:00:00 -0500

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires designated states and political subdivisions to obtain federal pre-clearance before giving effect to changes in their voting laws. Hispanic voters, residing in Monterey County, California, filed suit in federal court claiming the county had failed to obtain the required pre-clearance for a series of ordinances changing the method for electing county judges. A three-judge District Court ultimately dismissed the case because the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires pre-clearance did not cover California. Moreover, California had passed legislation requiring the voting changes forged by Monterey County.

Mccain v. Lybrand - Oral Argument

Mon, 31 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Sanchez - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Morris v. Gressette - Oral Argument, Part 1

Mon, 18 Apr 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Morris v. Gressette - Oral Argument, Part 2

Mon, 18 Apr 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Morse v. Republican Party Of Virginia - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500

In 1994, the Republican Party of Virginia held a state convention to nominate the Republican candidate for United States Senator. A local political committee could certify any voter as a delegate to the convention by paying a registration fee of $35 or $45. Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew, and Kimberly J. Enderson, registered voters in Virginia willing to declare their intent to support the Party's nominee, were eligible to participate. Bartholomew and Enderson refused to pay the fee and did not become delegates. Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee. Moore and others then filed a complaint seeking an injunction preventing the Party from imposing the fee, alleging that that the imposition of the fee violated sections 5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ultimately, the District Court dismissed the claims.

NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm'n - Oral Argument

Wed, 28 Nov 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Pleasant Grove v. United States - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Dec 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Port Arthur v. United States - Oral Argument

Wed, 06 Oct 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Presley v. Etowah County Commission - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Oral Argument

Mon, 09 Dec 1996 12:00:00 -0500

The Bossier Parrish School Board is subject to the preclearance requirements of ?5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Therefore, the Board must obtain the approval of either the Attorney General or the District Court before implementing any changes to a voting "qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure." Based on the 1990 census, the Board redrew its 12 single member districts, adopting the redistricting plan that the Attorney General had precleared for use in elections of the parish's governing body. The Board rejected a plan proposed by the NAACP, which would have created two majority black districts. The Attorney General then objected to the preclearance, finding that the NAACP plan demonstrated that black residents were sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority in two districts and that the Board's plan unnecessarily limited the opportunity for minority voters to elect their candidates of choice, thereby diluting their voting strength in violation of ?2 of the Act. Subsequently, the Attorney General withheld preclearance to prevent a violation of ?2 of the Act. The Board filed an action with the District Court. A three-judge panel granted the Board's preclearance request. The court rejected the contentions that a voting change's failure to satisfy ?2 of the Act constituted an independent reason to deny preclearance under ?5 and that a court must consider evidence of a ?2 violation as evidence of a discriminatory purpose under ?5.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on 1995 prohibits Bossier Parish, Louisiana from enacting any change in a "voting qualification[,] prerequisite[,] standard, practice, or procedure" without first obtaining preclearance from either the Attorney General or the District Court. Following the 1990 census, the District Court granted Bossier Parish preclearance to redistrict. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U.S. 471, vacated the court's judgment and remanded for the court to question whether the section 5 purpose inquiry ever extends beyond the search for retrogressive intent. The District Court again granted preclearance. The court found that there was no evidence of discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. The court left open the question of whether section 5 prohibits preclearance of a plan enacted with such a purpose.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Oral Reargument

Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:00:00 -0500

South Carolina v. Katzenbach - Oral Argument, Part 1

Mon, 17 Jan 1966 12:00:00 -0500

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach - Oral Argument, Part 2

Mon, 17 Jan 1966 12:00:00 -0500

Thornburg v. Gingles - Oral Argument

Wed, 04 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Sheffield Board Of Comm'rs - Oral Argument

Tue, 11 Oct 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Young v. Ford Ice - Oral Argument

Mon, 06 Jan 1997 12:00:00 -0500

In 1995, Mississippi attempted to simplify voter registration in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). A "Provisional Plan" for registration replaced the "Old System," mandating that, among other things, driver's license applications could double as voter registration forms for state and federal elections. As required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), the U.S. Attorney General pre-cleared the Provisional Plan, confirming that it did not discriminate against minority voters. Mississippi abandoned the pre-cleared Provisional Plan in favor of a composite "New System," which used the Old System for state elections and both the Provisional Plan and Old System for federal elections. Mississippi assumed that the Attorney General's pre-clearance of the Provisional Plan extended to the New System. Thomas Young, a Mississippi citizen, filed suit against Governor Kirk Fordice, alleging a violation of the VRA. A three-judge District Court ruled in favor of Mississippi.