The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Voting Decisions

Abrams v. Johnson

Did the District Court's redistricting plan violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act or Article I of the Constitution, guaranteeing "one person, one vote"?

No, in a five-to-four decision. First, the Court held that in re-drafting the plans, the District Court had no obligation to preserve all three of the old plan's black-majority districts, if this would result in racial gerrymandering. Second, the Court supported the District Court's decision not to preserve two black-majority districts as it held that the area's black population was not sufficiently compact to sustain such a plan. Third, the Court ruled that the plan's creation of only one black-majority district would not violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act by causing a retrogression in the political position of Abrams and his fellow plaintiffs. The Court, in addition to noting Abrams' failure to meet his retrogression claim's population density requirement, found that in the last election, held under the challenged plan, all three black incumbents won re-election, two of whom while running against white candidates from white-majority districts. Finally, the Court concluded that the District Court's redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution's guarantee of "one person, one vote." In addition to finding that the plan's overall and average population deviations were acceptable, the Court held that even if these deviations were slightly "off" they must be tolerated given their six year tenure in an area which has seen significant population shifts. Accordingly, any minor errors would be best corrected by the next census rather than by judicial intervention.

Allen v. State Board Of Elections

No details yet.

Anderson v. Martin

No details yet.

Beer v. United States

No details yet.

Branch v. Smith

Did the District Court properly enjoin the Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and properly fashion its own congressional reapportionment plan?Did the District Court properly enjoin the Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and properly fashion its own congressional reapportionment plan?

Yes. In a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held, 9-0, that the District Court properly enjoined enforcement of the state-court plan that lacked the required timely preclearance. The Court also held, 7-2, that the federal court properly fashioned its own congressional reapportionment plan, which drew the requisite single-member districts rather than directing at-large elections, under 2 USC section 2c. Regarding the second holding, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reasoned that the provision for at-large elections under 2 USC section 2a(c) was subject to the requirement under section 2c that single-member districts must be drawn whenever possible. Justice John Paul Stevens, with whom Justices David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined, concluded that section 2c impliedly repealed section 2a(c). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with whom Justice Clarence Thomas joined, disagreed with the plurality's interpretations of section 2c.

Briscoe v. Bell

No details yet.

Cardona v. Power

No details yet.

Carrington v. Rash

No details yet.

Chisom v. Roemer

No details yet.

Cipriano v. City Of Houma

No details yet.

City of Monroe v. United States

Is the city of Monroe, Georgia entitled to conduct elections under a state-law rule requiring majority vote to win, when the U.S. alleged that the city had not sought preclearance of the change from plurality voting as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the city was entitled to conduct elections under the auspices of a controlling state-law default rule that had been passed by the state's legislature in 1968. The Court reasoned that, because the U.S. Attorney General had approved and precleared the default rule when the state had submitted the 1968 code for preclearance, the submission had given the Attorney General an adequate opportunity to determine the purpose of the default-rule electoral changes and whether they would adversely affect minority voting.

City Of Richmond v. United States

No details yet.

City Of Rome v. United States

No details yet.

Clark v. Roemer

No details yet.

Dougherty County Bd. Of Ed. v. White

No details yet.

Evans v. Cornman

No details yet.

Foreman v. Dallas County

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

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.

Foster v. Love

Does Louisiana's open primary violate the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day?

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that when Louisiana's open primary is applied to select among congressional candidates in October, it conflicts with federal law and to that extent is void. The Court rejected the argument that Louisiana's system only concerns the manner, not the time, of a federal election. Justice Souter reasoned that a federal election occurs in Louisiana before the federal election date whenever a candidate receives a majority in the open primary.

Gaston County v. United States

No details yet.

Georgia v. Ashcroft

Did the redistricting plan violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by spreading minority voters across several districts rather than concentrating them in a few heavily minority ones?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice O'Connor, the Court held that the District Court failed to consider all the relevant factors when it examined whether Georgia's Senate plan resulted in a retrogression of black voters' effective exercise of the electoral franchise. The Court reasoned that Georgia likely met its burden of showing nonretrogression under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because the District Court focused too narrowly on certain districts without examining the increases in the black voting age population that occurred in many of the other districts and improperly rejected evidence that the legislators representing the benchmark majority-minority districts support the plan. In his dissent, Justice David H. Souter argued that Georgia had failed to carry its burden.

Georgia v. United States

No details yet.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Did the redrawing of Tuskegee's electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents the United States or any individual state from denying a citizen the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?

The unanimous Court held that Act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice Frankfurter admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power "wholly within the domain of state interest." However, in this case, Alabama's representatives were unable to identify "any countervailing municipal function" which the act was designed to serve. It was clear to the Court that the irregularly shaped district was drawn with only one purpose in mind, namely, to deprive blacks of political power.

Goosby v. Osser

No details yet.

Gordon v. Lance

No details yet.

Gutierrez v. Ada

Does the Organic Act of Guam require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that "[t]he Guam Organic Act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election." Justice Souter wrote for the Court that an "obvious reading" of the law requires only a majority of votes cast in that one specific race, "Congress did not shift its attention when it used 'any election' unadorned by a gubernatorial reference or other definite modifier."

Hadnott v. Amos

No details yet.

Harman v. Forssenius

No details yet.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that making voter affluence an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that wealth or fee-paying had no relation to voting qualifications. The Court also noted that the Equal Protection Clause was not "shackled to the political theory of a particular era" and that notions of what constituted equal treatment under the Clause were subject to change.

Hathorn v. Lovorn

No details yet.

Hill v. Stone

No details yet.

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

No details yet.

Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa

No details yet.

Houston Lawyers' Ass'n v. Texas Attorney Gen.

No details yet.

Hunter v. Underwood

No details yet.

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

No details yet.

Katzenbach v. Morgan

No details yet.

Kramer v. Union School District

No details yet.

Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd.

No details yet.

League of Latin American Citizens v. Perry

Did the Texas legislature violate the Constitution and and the Voting Rights Act when it used 2000 census data to redistrict in 2003 for partisan advantage, resulting in districts that (by 2003 numbers) did not conform to the one person, one vote standard?

The Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature's redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution, but that part of the plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a majority of the justices, stated that District 23 had been redrawn in such a way as to deny Latino voters as a group the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choosing, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act. Justice Kennedy also wrote, however, that nothing in the Constitution prevented the state from redrawing its electoral boundaries as many times as it wanted, so long as it did so at least once every ten years.

Lockhart v. United States

No details yet.

Lopez v. Monterey County

May a district court issue an order that authorizes a county covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to conduct judicial elections under an election plan that has not received federal approval pursuant to section 5?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the District Court had erred in ordering the county to conduct the election under a plan that had not received federal approval pursuant to section 5. The Court reasoned that the County had not discharged its obligation of gaining preclearance of its election plan prior to its enactment. On remand, the Court left it to the District Court to decide whether changes in California law transformed the County into a state plan, for which section 5 preclearance is not required.

Lopez v. Monterey County

Does the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance requirement apply to states not explicitly covered by the Act?

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, announced by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court ruled that the county is covered by the Act's pre-clearance requirement, but the state was not. Justice O'Connor wrote, "We conclude that the county is required to seek pre-clearance before implementing California laws that effect voting changes in that county."

Louisiana v. United States

No details yet.

Mccain v. Lybrand

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Sanchez

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. Board Of Election

No details yet.

Mobile v. Bolden

Did the at-large system violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?

No. The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not entail "the right to have Negro candidates elected," and that only purposefully discriminatory denials of the freedom to vote on the basis of race demanded constitutional remedies. The Court also found that multimember legislative districts were not unconstitutional per se; such legislative apportionments only violated the Fourteenth Amendment if they were "conceived or operated as [a] purposeful devic[e] to further racial. . .discrimination." In short, the Court held that facially neutral actions were unconstitutional only if motivated by discriminatory purposes.

Morris v. Gressette

No details yet.

Morse v. Republican Party Of Virginia

Does section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 require preclearance of the Republican Party of Virginia's decision to exact a fee to nominate the party's candidate for senator? Are voters permitted to challenge the fee as a poll tax prohibited by section 10?

Yes and yes. In a 5-4 plurality opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, five Justices of the Court, although unable to agree on an opinion, agreed that the party's imposition of the registration fee was subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5 and that a private right of action existed to enforce section 10. "By limiting the opportunity for voters to participate in the Party's convention, the fee undercuts their influence on the field of candidates whose names will appear on the ballot, and thus weakens the 'effectiveness' of their votes cast in the general election itself," wrote Justice Stevens for the Court. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the opinion, in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter joined. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy filed separate dissents. Each emphasized First Amendment concerns.

NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm'n

No details yet.

NAACP v. New York

No details yet.

O'brien v. Skinner

No details yet.

Oregon v. Mitchell

No details yet.

Perkins v. Matthews

No details yet.

Phoenix v. Kolodziejski

No details yet.

Pleasant Grove v. United States

No details yet.

Port Arthur v. United States

No details yet.

Presley v. Etowah County Commission

No details yet.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Must preclearance be denied under ?5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 whenever a covered jurisdiction's new voting "standard, practice, or procedure" violates ?2 of the Act? Is evidence that a new "standard, practice, or procedure" has a dilutive impact irrelevant to the inquiry whether the covered jurisdiction acted with a discriminatory purpose under ?5 of the Act?

No and no. In an opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the Court ruled that preclearance under ?5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may not be denied solely on the basis that a covered jurisdiction's new voting "standard, practice, or procedure" violates ? 2 of the Act. Additionally, evidence showing that a jurisdiction's redistricting plan dilutes minorities' voting power may be relevant to establish a jurisdiction's "intent to retrogress" under ?5 of the Act.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board

Does section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that section 5 does not prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. "As we have repeatedly noted, in vote-dilution cases [section 5] prevents nothing but backsliding, and preclearance under [section 5] affirms nothing but the absence of backsliding," wrote Justice Scalia. Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the opinions of Justices Souter and Stevens. "Now executive and judicial officers of the United States will be forced to preclear illegal and unconstitutional voting schemes patently intended to perpetuate discrimination," argued Justice Souter.

Richardson v. Ramirez

No details yet.

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party

Do Puerto Rico's statutes, authorizing a political party to appoint one of its own members as an interim replacement to a vacated seat, infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of association or equal protection?

No. The Court, in a unanimous opinion, began by noting that the Constitution does not compel a fixed method of selecting state or local representatives. As such, the Puerto Rican Commonwealth legislature could vest exclusive interim appointment power in parties affiliated with the previous incumbent. This scheme is particularly reasonable in light of Puerto Rico's interest in maintaining continuity of party representation until the next general election and insuring its legislature's delicate balance of minority representation.

Rogers v. Lodge

Did the system of elections violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Burke County's black citizens?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the at-large system of elections in Burke County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the at-large system was operated as a purposeful device to further racial discrimination. The Court held that there was extensive historical evidence that the county had impeded the political participation of black citizens and that the at-large system minimized even further the ability of blacks to participate in the political process. The Court also upheld the system of single-member districts established by a district court.

Roudebush v. Hartke

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections?

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.

Thornburg v. Gingles

No details yet.

United States v. Alabama

No details yet.

United States v. Mississippi

No details yet.

United States v. Raines

No details yet.

United States v. Sheffield Board Of Comm'rs

No details yet.

United States v. Thomas

No details yet.

Williams v. Brown

No details yet.

Young v. Ford Ice

Did the state of Mississippi violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by implementing a new voter registration policy, the "New System," without explicit approval from the U.S. Attorney General?

Yes. The unanimous Court reversed the District Court and ruled that Mississippi must submit the New System to the Attorney General for pre-clearance. The opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer held that "the New System contains numerous examples of new, significantly different administrative practices [....]" Therefore, the Attorney General must ensure that the proposed policy does not discriminate against minorities.