Document: 525 U.S. 266119 S.Ct. 693142 L.Ed.2d 728 (97-1396)Reversed and remanded.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1396 VICKY M. LOPEZ, et al., APPELLANTS v. MONTEREY COUNTY al. ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA [January 20, 1999] Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Under Voting Rights Act 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 seq. (Act or Act), designated States political subdivisions are required to obtain federal preclearance before giving effect changes in their voting laws. See §1973c. Here, State California (California State), which is not subject Act's requirements, has passed legislation altering scheme for electing judges Monterey County, (Monterey County County), a "covered" jurisdiction preclear its changes. In this appeal, we review conclusion three-judge District Court that need seek approval these them effect. The reasoned, specifically, requirement merely implemented law without exercising any independent discretion. We hold requirements apply measures mandated by noncovered extent will change covered county. Accordingly, reverse decision 2 * instant appeal marks second occasion on addressed issues arising course litigation over method assume familiarity with our previous case. Lopez 519 9 (1996). 3 Congress enacted under authority enforce Fifteenth Amendment's proscription against discrimination. contains generally applicable rights protections, but it also places special restrictions activity within designated, "covered," jurisdictions. Jurisdictions selected coverage if they meet specified criteria suggesting presence discrimination jurisdiction. pertinent case were established 1970 amendment extended "(i) Attorney General determines maintained November 1, 1968, test device [as prerequisite voting], respect (ii) Director Census less than 50 per centum persons age residing therein registered such voted presidential election 1968." 84 315, 1973b(b). 4 subjects jurisdictions Section 4(a) suspends use "test device" coverage. §1973b(a)(1). addition, §5 provides must measure departs from place date. portion provides, "whenever [covered] subdivision . shall enact administer qualification voting, standard, practice, procedure different force 5 A two avenues available §5. may submit proposed General. If affirmatively approves fails object 60 days, deemed precleared put into Ibid. Alternatively, either first instance following an objection General, filing declaratory judgment action United Columbia. court declares "qualification, prerequisite, does have purpose denying abridging right vote account race color, contravention guarantees set forth section 1973b(f)(2) title [proscribing based membership language minority group]." 6 1971, was findings that, California's statewide literacy percent County's population participated 1968 Presidential election. 35 Fed. Reg. 12354 (1970); 36 5809 (1971); see departure 1968. 7 fact, last 30 years, there been numerous structure trial system judges. On had nine judicial districts: municipal seven justice districts. As observed earlier opinion, supra, at 12, districts encompassed larger populations counterparts, former whereas latter one. Moreover, courts record, frequently worked part time. Each wholly independent, elected large voters district served. 8 Since 1972, however, undergone substantial resulting what today single, countywide served 10 Four ordinances adopted between 1972 1976 reduced number three.* Subsequently, 1977 state transformed district, raising total three. Cal. Stats., ch. 995. next noteworthy occurred 1979, consolidation three June 5, Ordinance 2524, provided Peninsula Judicial District, North Salinas would be combined form Municipal District. App. Juris. Statement 75. same year, law, apparently request, requiring merger mapping out some mechanics new, consolidated district. 1979 694; §4 (noting "this act accordance request local governmental entity entities desired legislative carry program act"). part, "[t]here Monterey, after effective date section, single embraces District." Id., §2. thus left one final step toward 1983. 2930, Board Supervisors August 2, 1983, merged remaining formed consolidation. 77 80. became January 1984, countywide. State, again September increasing contingent upon already ordinance. 1983 1249, §§3, 16. subsequently recognized taken additional judgeships. 1985 659, §1. pursuant authorization, ultimately increased sitting current 10. 1987 1211, §30; 81 82. elections took at-large, plan 1986, 1988, 1990. 11 although Act, failed six ordinances. Nor did like ordinance directed General's approval, authorizing judgeships process, Department copy oppose State's submission, "submission well county ordinance." U.S., 15. noted, probably satisfy preceding ordinances, ibid. ("Thus, precedent, do appear received approval"), challenge here, Brief Appellee 13, n. B 12 Appellants, Hispanic who reside filed suit Northern 6, 1991, claiming fulfill obligation concluded unenforceable until precleared. 13 initiated proceedings Columbia effort Ultimately, agreed dismiss prejudice stipulate " 'Board unable establish [consolidation ordinances] Latinos due retrogressive several Latino strength County.' 871 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (ND 1995) (quoting Resolution 94 107 (March 15, 1994)). 14 Back California, appellants working together, submitted alternatives districtwide scheme. Meanwhile, allowed intervene proceedings, opposed plans ground violated aspects Constitution governing elections. By late 1994, unsuccessful attempts secure Constitution, remained formulate felt comport violate aspect law. circumstances, opted purposes Supp., 1255 1256. temporary plan, countywide, constitutional provisions coextensive judge's electoral base prohibiting division cities among more courts. Const., Art. VI, §16(b); §5(a). concluded, interfere only minimally interests. 1259 1260. 15 court's interim March 1995, 1995 serve 1997. Following election, decided Miller Johnson, 515 900 (1995), which, Court's view, cast doubt legality plan. Having determined other options feasible, ordered new held 1996 scheme, very effected through challenged original complaint. 16 This granted appellants' emergency stay application enjoined proposed, 516 1104 noted probable 517 1118 (1996), reversed, erred, directing take remanded matter "[t]he scrutiny should satisfied further delay." 25. so doing, expressly declined pass merits claim raised current, because now combination 19 20. require product 17 remand, moved complaint theory, others, unnecessary C 91 20559 RMW Cal., Dec. 19, 1997), 9. Among grounds dismissal motion, alleged claims barred laches, error designate §5, alter "standard, procedure" address alternative bases complaint, reach here. vacate 25, 1996, order extending terms along motion dismiss. 18 granting dismiss, reasoned own terms, creates Noncovered entities, bear no responsibility "enact administer." id., 5. "[T]he appears target those enactments suspected non-covered, superior jurisdiction." existing County. merging even preclearance, eliminated courts, course. §5(b). become themselves, light provision minimum 40,000 residents 8; reaching conclusion, rejected "seek administer" them. Relying Young Fordice, 520 273 (1997), "'seek[s] administer'" change, used where exercises element discretion policy choice matter. found, implement 20 dismissing 523 ___ (1998), reverse. II 21 Appellants together contend leading urges, response, limits "Partially covered" insists, comply argue, obligated effects. Rather, unquestionably pursue state-sponsored "seek[s] That non-precleared irrelevant analysis question whether when, discretion, implements State. Because agree state-mandated conclude implementing laws 22 face itself most compelling support claim. phrase indication intended limit §5's obligations discretionary actions To contrary, "administer" consistently defined purely non-discretionary terms. See, e.g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 27 (1961) ("to manage affairs of," "to direct superintend execution, use, conduct of"); Random House English Language 26 (2d ed. 1987) (affairs, government, etc.); executive charge Black's Law 44 (6th 1990) ("To conduct"). view capture jurisdiction's nonlegislative, initiatives contrary. Such reading poses barrier encompasses nondiscretionary acts endeavoring 23 persuaded Congress' word "seek" trigger requirement. context readily understood creating temporal distinction. Government indicated enacting change. 28 CFR 51.22(a) (1997) (listing "[a]ny proposal affecting prior enactment" "premature submissions" consider); Tr. Oral Arg. Preclearance actually administering makes distinction clear. 24 note, too, elsewhere assumed partially affects counties. Jewish Organizations Williamsburgh, Inc. Carey, 430 144 (1977), brought Hasidic Kings York, redistricting legislature. though jurisdiction, counties themselves Act. efforts exempt proved unsuccessful, York ex rel. States, 419 888 (1974), "it necessary [State] reapportionment statute insofar concerned [the covered] Counties," 148 149. decision's relies fact meant 162 ("[P]etitioners shown, offered prove, authorized ."); Shaw Hunt, 899, 911 913 (1996) (evaluating justified race-based districting consideration requirement). These decisions reveal clear assumption effects 25 alone assumption. 1,300 submissions seeking currently covered: Florida, Michigan, Hampshire, Carolina, South Dakota. Amicus Curiae Support 3; pt. 51, (identifying States); Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 392 (1971) particular interpretation "was accepted least affected subdivisions, approval"). cases instances interested parties labored partially-covered Reno, 509 630, 634 (1993) ("Because [North Carolina] Assembly's counties, applied"); Johnson De Grandy, 512 997, 1001, (1994) (Florida five covered); Haith Martin, 618 410 (EDNC 1985) (suit Carolina §5), summarily aff'd, 477 901 (1986); Onslow 683 1021, 1024 1988) (covered including statute, preclearance). While bound assumptions, see, Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 630 631 (1993), alike routinely circumstances presented here supports Finally, find especially relevant reads do. According Government, construed when 'seek[s] administer' enactment State." 19; S. Rep. 417, pp. (1982) (describing objections Dakota, both States). Subject certain limitations implicated Presley Etowah Comm'n, 502 491, 508 (1992), traditionally afford deference her "central role formulating implementing" section. Dougherty Bd. Ed. White, 439 32, 39 (1978); NAACP Hampton Election 470 166, 178 179 (1985) ("Any resolved construction placed entitled considerable deference"); 390 391 ("Our location polling boundary come draws followed his administration statute"). significant section's plain effect, applies county's notwithstanding County-wide urges tread constitutionally reserved States. contends, could withstand interpreted historical wrongdoers sphere. preclearance. 29 authorizes intrusion sensitive areas policymaking, imposes "federalism costs." 926. Amendment, likewise acknowledged Reconstruction Amendments nature contemplate City Rome 446 156, (1980). recently power legislate Fourteenth "[l]egislation deters remedies violations can fall sweep enforcement process prohibits unconstitutional intrudes spheres autonomy previously States." Boerne Flores, 521 507, 518 (internal quotation citation omitted). specifically upheld constitutionality usurps powers Katzenbach, 383 301, 334 335 (1966); 183. Katzenbach result where, cover once guard discriminatory animus potentially harmful neutral 333 334. Rome, reaffirmed "under prohibit practices effect." 175; 180 (upholding federalism challenge). 31 is, moreover, precisely text requires. concludes "does vote" basis impermissible classification. 1973c (emphasis supplied). employs standard deciding 51.52(a) (1997). 32 Recognizing give rise jurisdictions, merit lacks Amendment implementation just interpret today, burdens properly With tests, allows At barring tests nationwide, 1973aa ban Gaston 395 285, 287 (1969) (although covered, "[u]se suspended" jurisdiction). §4(b), state-imposed may, provide designating whole covered. 33 seeks bolster argument noting statutory ability exemption permits relief exempting meets criteria. 1973b(a). Even "bailout" behalf 149, sought exemptions counties), advance Partially facing suspension faced dilemma. event, avail §4(a)'s bailout procedures. 34 short, nature, sovereignty. intrusion, holding adds nothing moment imposes. exercise requirements. particular, Monroe 522 (per curiam). weight bear. foremost Young, involved National Voters' Registration about compliance preclearance: "This made minor, major, true long reflect choices officials." 284 (citations Like Court, invoke proposition "policy choices" Congress, body retains curtail protections subsequent legislation; alternatively, accounted policies underlying rendering officials" isolate creatures Congress. rely Monroe, included empowered municipality city's failure charter It permitted city level. unnecessary, however. approved 37 ("Since law], it"). stand engage discretionless wished note created exception involving federally court-ordered general rule, crafted Connor 402 690, 691 Thus, Connor, apportionment developed Federal Mississippi narrow requirement, grounded entity, room grows largely separation-of-powers concerns court, specifically. Black dissent Connor: 38 "Needless say I completely majority formulated strange indeed construe stayed reviewed Columbia." 695. since exception. McDaniel Sanchez, 452 130 (1981), sustained court. it, "requires whenever submits [to court] reflecting representatives people applicable." 153. choic[e]" represent rule obligations. best read protect court-developed embodied orders, define scope 40 consistent opinion. 41 ordered. Notes 1. *County 1917, October 3, 56 57. 1973, 1999 another 58 59. 2139, 1976, 62 64. 2212, 7, added 68 70. Kennedy, J., concurring SUPREME 43 45 46 whom Chief joins, judgment. 47 decide "§5's Ante, think quite possible, particularly identified Thomas, requires aims arises. Oxford 877 1989) (defining "seek," inter alia, "[t]o make one's aim, try attempt (do something)"). 690 curiam), suggest specific (holding court); 290 adoption Voter registration "is not, itself, so"). 48 concur majority's disposition case, issue preferences determinations itself. 130, 151 (1981) (voting contained federal-court jurisdiction); 285 (state "reflect [state] officials"). For example, codified stated behest. 694, ("[T]his govern- mental enactments. dissenting 49 51 52 dissenting. 53 interprets subdivision, somehow statute; doubtful. choices. respectfully dissent. 54 notes, ante, (County) not. "State voting" differs requirement.1 Although separate time elect then, squarely puts us effecting subdivisions. 55 11.2 administer," plainly erroneous. "[A]dminister" plausibly read, isolation, encompass "nondiscretionary But "[S]eek surrounding "shall term contrast "enact." my qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, procedures way formal enactment. words, designed ensure cannot cleverly avoid simple expedient making nonlegislative means. render superfluous "enact" prong statute. person "denied with" absent unless And explanation modifies "temporal distinction," unsatisfactory ignores "shall" limitation. Both prongs surprisingly, written futurity, given prophylactic nature. 57 My accurately reflects purpose. recognized, 'a response common practice staying ahead passing soon old ones struck down therefore shift advantage inertia perpetrators evil victim," .' Beer 425 140 (1976) H. R. 196, (1970). 59 Reno Bossier Parish School Bd., 471, Beer); 900, 926 (1995) (same). follows found "perpetrators evil" means §4(b) formula describes, 2. never "perpetrators" thwart. reason believe choices.3 amicus curiae supporting appellants, suggests suggestion, implying statutes recognize by, reflected of, decided, 147, "[a]s congressional mandate, obviously said underlies Beer, 140. Regardless ever demonstrated collusion governments, record argument, Court4 briefs 61 avoids doubtful interpretation. "[W]here susceptible constructions, grave questions arise avoided, duty adopt latter." Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 366, 408 (1909); Feltner Pictures Television, Inc., 340, 355, 356 359 (1998) (Scalia, judgment). unique exacts costs, occasion. Parish, 480; 926; 200 (1980) (Powell, dissenting); Sheffield Comm'rs, 435 110, 141 (1978) (Stevens, 358 360 (1966) (Black, dissenting). interference sovereignty drastic obtaining Government's approval. Powell wrote "encroachment troubling destroys control self-government, central values polity." 201. 63 Despite serious undeniable twice power,5 Rome. cases, compared broad Necessary Proper Clause. 326. great care emphasize remedial 529 (1997); 327 328.6 64 There remedy wrong. Essential holdings remedying intentional racial evidence burdened engaged "evidence actual discrimination" 330. each characteristics present depressed voter turnout device. permissible impose "more fragmentary evidence" discrimination, 329 330, conditions (incorporated formula) exist, "at absence proof [such jurisdictions] free recent years," thought important "the provide[d] termination behest danger ha[d] materialized during years." 331. employed period, applied. "because demonstrable history create risk purposeful proper [for Congress] impact." 416 177 added; footnote 65 "find[s] [a discriminatory] county." 17. overlooks warning appropriateness considered presented." 530; 211 219 (Rehnquist, finding intentionally discriminated race, ethnicity voting. run afoul overbroad formula. "[p]reventive types appropriate many signifi-cant likelihood being unconstitutional." 532. discriminate anything constitutional. remain Constitution. 66 raises levels costs denied develop policy; enforceable subdivision. forced defend interests Government. know interest, simply disagree choose vigorously Indeed, represented "concurs essential arguments affect ." 67 unusual points instances, California. think, compared. "notorious deny abridge grounds." 355 Literacy unfairly administered; whites easy questions, blacks difficult bubbles soap bar, news Peking Daily, meaning obscure passages constitutions, definition habeas corpus." A. Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count?, Affirmative Action Minority (1987). When disenfranchise black voters. Later Oregon Mitchell, 112 (1970), national facially preventing governments education minorities. focused contrast, presumes how innocuous invalid, prevents gives 69 procedures, otherwise. contrary raises. 70 convenience, shorthand "voting change" "change throughout. adhere all §§2 sections understood. Holder Hall, 874, 891, 893 903 (opinion 71 am convinced elections, believes. 72 3. subdivision" cases. 110 (1978), Sheffield, Alabama, "political nevertheless unit" 127 128. Whether correct matter, "top-down" approach announced case; argue "bottom-up" reasoning supports. Morse Republican Party Va., 186 activities views expressed dissent, most, stands "State" (but all) "coextensive doctrine action." 265 (Thomas, Of course, language. 73 4. somewhat similar reasons, still affirm First Amended Complaint, ask antecedent needed 83 104. 74 provides: "Section citizens abridged condition servitude. article legislation." 75 6. power, always treated conferred coextensive. Boerne, 528; James Bowman, 190 (1903).

Category: 1