Document: 460 U.S. 125 103 S.Ct. 998 74 L.Ed.2d 863 CITY OF LOCKHART, Appellantv.UNITED STATES and Alfred Cano. No. 81-802. Argued Nov. 3, 1982. Decided Feb. 23, 1983. Syllabus Prior to 1973, appellant Texas city was a "general law" governed by commission consisting of mayor two commissioners, all serving the same 2-year terms. These offices were filled in even-numbered years through at-large elections using "numbered post" system whereby posts designated number, each candidate specified post for which he or she sought election. In became "home rule" city, adopted new charter it would be four councilmen staggered terms, with being elected numbered-post other similarly odd-numbered years. Forty-seven percent appellant's population are Mexican-American, but, as 1977, less than 30% registered voters Mexican-American. A Federal District Court Texas, 1979 suit individual appellee Mexican-Americans, enjoined further under plan pending preclearance electoral changes § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965. The Attorney General precleared except extent that they incorporate elections, system, terms councilmen. Appellant then filed Columbia, seeking declaratory judgment remaining did not have purpose effect denying voting rights guaranteed 5. compared what old practice been without numbered on ground law general-law entitled use system. court held discriminating against protected minorities, particularly view history racial bloc city. Held: 1. Appellant's entire 1973 election is subject admits addition seats its governing body introduction also changed nature "continuing" seats, since council one identical two. Moreover, discriminatory cannot determined isolation from "preexisting" elements council. Similarly, impact any evaluated considering fact posts. Pp. 131-132. 2. will abridging right vote account race, color, membership language minority group. 132-136. (a) proper comparison purposes between actually practice, regardless state might required. Section intended halt actual retrogression strength regard legality practices already effect. 132-133. (b) Under principle 5's insure no procedures made lead strength, Beer v. United States, 425 130, 96 1357, 47 629, when prior does Here, where has used many years, effective single-shot equally impossible both systems, races could highlighted systems. reduced opportunity increased highlighting races. Although there may improvement minorities' neither retrogression. Pp.133-136 1003-1004. --- F.Supp. ----, vacated remanded. Walter H. Mizell, Austin, Tex., appellant. Jose Garza, San Antonio, Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case requires us consider application City Lockhart 1973. 2 * community just 8,000 people Caldwell County, 30 miles south Austin. According most recent census figures, almost 47% City's As however, fewer 3 Before law, cities only those powers State specifically permits them possess. authorized two-year April this commissioner Thus race effectively separate office.1 4 contrast home-rule authority do whatever prohibited State. includes discretion define form government establish elections. part charter, chose 1965, 79 Stat. 439, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c,2 covered jurisdictions enforce their laws after obtaining "preclearance" ways: (i) obtain States Columbia group, (ii) submit General, who 60 days object. extended 1975, covering procedure November 1, 1972. See 40 Fed.Reg. 43746 (1975). 6 including Cano, challenged constitutionality Lockhart's charter. Cano Kirksey, A-77-CA-133 (WD dismissed Oct. 8, 1982), appeal sub nom. Chesser, 82-1616 (CA5, 1982). course suit, plaintiffs discovered had never obtained approval instituted second brought enjoin preclearance. Western granted injunctive relief.3 A-79-CA-0032 Mar. 2, 1979) (three-judge court). 7 Once future approval, interposed an objection present Columbia. intervened defendant. required 5, three-judge convened decide case. 8 Court, recognizing must prove absence purpose, bifurcated trial. Addressing first issue, held, over dissent Chief Judge Spottswood Robinson, Appeals Circuit, minorities.4 decided requirements. It current before refused recognize justified explicitly thus illegal concluded impact, Lockhart. 9 dissent, agreed majority city-council preclearance, tended curb ability minorities elect candidates. But relying 629 (1976), strength. 10 appealed contending misconstrued scope that, event, defended below, now agrees retrogressive Mexican-Americans. continues defend result below. We noted probable jurisdiction. 455 987, 102 1609, 71 846 (1982). II 11 coverage circumstances concedes applies changes, changes. contends, apply "continuation" continued conclude change respect places. 12 moving three-member five-member council, at issue. Council For example, constitute 40% rather 67% commission. these isolation, integral possible admittedly plan. posts.5 therefore hold introduced III 13 Having we determine whether plan's A. 14 step identify appropriate comparison. such court, distinguishing Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 91 431, 27 476 (1971), reasoned recognition legal requirement reward past illegality. preferred instead draw way maximize reach 15 entirely clear point,6 but essentially irrelevant. 1972,7 basis established supra. There conducted relevant aldermen wards, despite statute requiring explained: 16 "In our view, reference 'in force 19[72],' taken mean followed if date." U.S., 394, S.Ct., 440. 17 conclusion based plain reading section's language. is, moreover, accord Act's underlying policy. effect.8 B 18 aspects objected, Our inquiry guided principles (1976).9 19 involved reapportionment New Orleans councilmanic districts. reapportionment, black citizens bare five district, population. plan, blacks slightly larger voter majorities second. remained discriminatory, nevertheless regressive change. explained "[t]he clearly provides proposed procedures." 138, 1362. "[T]he always voting-procedure position exercise franchise." Id., 141, 1364.10 Since increase degree discrimination blacks, 20 remain issue case: councilmen.11 recognized some circumstances, predominates. Use frustrate "single-shot voting," technique concentrating support behind single candidate. posts, consistently 1917. Effective now, highlight races, so old. Robinson concluded, "the enhanced, [has been] diminished whit." App. Juris. Statement 33a. erred finding 21 it, too, reduce tend minorities. faced every Now face year. inability identical. Minorities year retrogression, either. 22 argues frequency necessary resulted more frequent said turnout, disproportionate voters. argument, cites figures 1975 That year, turn-out unusually low, 5.7% percentage Mexican-American three six times great. misleading. election, candidates running unopposed, undoubtedly explains lower overall among higher slightly. 1978, time history, annual record, therefore, contradicts Cano's argument. IV 23 Applying standards Charter Court's findings contrary erroneous. accordingly vacate judgment, remand proceedings consistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 WHITE dissents. 26 MARSHALL, concurring dissenting part. I disagree fundamentally adopt schemes perpetuate discrimination. Congress powerful measure advancing goals Fifteenth Amendment, reaffirmed intention reenacted By holding forbids discrimination, reduces means maintaining status quo. Because interpretation flatly inconsistent provision supported decision (1975), Parts 28 affirm below conclusion, questions, "imposition term provisions continue have" (Emphasis added.)1 29 Indeed, bears repeating should reemphasized Amendment "nullifies sophisticated well simple-minded modes discrimination." Lane Wilson, 307 268, 275, 59 872, 876, 83 L.Ed. 1281 (1939). adoption scheme, long scheme predecessor, provision. focusing exclusively worsens voters, ignoring itself effect, see ante, 133-136, substitutes own invention mandated reasons elaborated believe perpetuates existing 31 jurisdiction "voting qualification, prerequisite voting, standard, voting." 439 (1965), 1973c. burden proving 32 qualification . [membership group] ." Ibid. 33 focuses itself, difference predecessor. basis. diminishes say far different holding, does, sole determining Nothing suggests satisfies 34 wholly legislative leaves doubt prohibit adopting precisely do. intent 35 1965 enacted direct response failure efforts implement guarantees Amendment. nationwide problem, general prohibition practices. See, e.g., §§ 437, 1973a. concerned, "systematic exclusion Negroes polls characterizes certain regions Nation." H.R.Rep. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 2437, 2440. identified number "engaged widespread violations 15th amendment period time," id., 14, p. 2445,2 provided stringent remedial measures applicable nationwide. important 36 specific prevent continuing pervasive perpetuated alarmed success evaded strictures earlier resorting extraordinary stratagem contriving rules perpetuating adverse federal decrees." South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 335, 86 803, 822, 769 (1966) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). historical experience attempts revealed "[b]arring contrivance too often caused result, methods." supra, 10. S.Rep. 162, pt. 2441, 2543.3 enforcement prohibitions free discriminate 822. 37 order evasive maneuvers, recognized, designed suspend "all regulations review authorities 316, 812 "After enduring nearly century systematic resistance shift[ed] advantage inertia perpetrators evil victims." 328, 818. 38 When 1970, 1982, central 5: promote attainment equality preventing House Report accompanying 1970 extension viewed "preclud[ing]" "new 397, 91st 6-7.4 amended stated unequivocally "[i]n effect." 196, 94th (1975) added); 295, 774, 781. 57 (1975); 15-18 stressed "designed devices disenfranchisement simply replaced ones," "complex subtle [that] results discrimination," "eradicat[e] effects 417, 97th 2d 6, 12, 44 (1982), 182, 189, 223.5 39 disregards holds satisfied level even prevents worsen completely ignores very reason why imposed discrimination: perpetuation procedures. circumvent foreclose. non-ameliorative Today's represents unsupported Congress' understanding 41 concerned improved found enhanced Negro districts constituted majority. 141-142, 1364. follows: "We ameliorative apportionment violate unless discriminates color Constitution." 1364 confirmed footnote opinion, states: "It substantial predecessor lessening yet nonetheless unconstitutional." 142 n. 14.6 involve which, like us, preserves nothing differs critical enhances improving progress attaining equality, fundamental goal Act. contrast, enhance merely maintains conceivable eliminated least political pattern prevailed 43 While dissented mandate departure reconcilable broad similar justification today's decision. light Act, perverse interpret authorize maintain robs basic function To relies solely statement Ante, 134, citing 1363-64. statement, addressing rested isolated passage reenactment appears section Judiciary Committee criticized narrow within Department Justice. chosen focus "whether administration [an electoral] been, bias." unduly narrow: 45 recommend Justice, affecting standard Supreme interpreted it. fully indication impartial neutral. Rather can groups participate process choices office augmented, diminished, affected political, sociological, economic, psychological proposing change." 46 inferred diminish indication, criticizing "broader inquiry" into ibid., meant suggest report address treatment scheme. C allow assumption rule laid down Senate stated: 48 "Under 130 [96 629] objectionable 'itself Constitution.' 141; 142, 1364, 14] (citing dilution cases Forston Dorsey[, 379 433, 85 498, 401 (1965) ] White Regester[, 412 755, 93 2332, 314 (1973) ]. follow 2." 31, 189. 49 stating "rule Beer" decision, indicated understood implication contrary, 1982 Amendments, taken, shows repeatedly 141,supra. 50 addition, sentence quoted above confirms intend limit denied violated violates "results denial abridgement" basis, Pub.L. 97-205, 131 (1982).7 reenacting violating surely retrogressive. 51 refusal 9. Both went immediately deciding "effect vote" meaning bound stands. change, plainly us. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. Curran, 1825, 1833, 72 182 extending manner squarely 52 my circumventing protections Constitution considerations 53 An quo deny equal chance choice.8 although Mexican Americans Lockhart, American ever served body. choice leveraging voting. imposition numbered-posts features leverage detriment minority-supported candidates.9 numbered-seats "discriminatory voters' choice." undisturbed simple 54 BLACKMUN, 55 join IV. My record convinces me factual Mexican-Americans At least, Amendments 131, altered contrasted run receiving greatest votes elected. provides, part, "[W]henever subdivision [such Lockhart] shall enact seek administer 1972, institute action prerequisite, contravention set forth 4(f)(2) [42 1973b(f)(2) (prohibiting members groups) ], until enters person comply procedure: Provided, enforced proceeding submitted chief officer official sixty submission. Neither affirmative made, nor General's object, entered bar subsequent procedure. Any heard judges accordance [28 2284] lie Court." granting injunction, lacked pass All covered, requirements satisfied, (iii) remedy appropriate. Board Supervisors Warren 429 642, 645-647, 97 833, 834-35, 106 (1977) (per curiam ). included unnecessary purpose. seeks rely readily distinguishable point. Beer, considered composed seven members, reapportioned ordinance. "The ordinance seats. them; city's voters." 138-139, Furthermore, affect way. titles. decrease size short, district 5." 139, appear subject. challenge, suggesting presumption law. then. That, presumably, exception 1917 394-395, 440, (1971). questions issues either speculation decline instance. remains open remand. Contrary suggestion MARSHALL's post, 142-143, distinguish preserved applied agreeing fortiori permissible. several opinions distinction opinion; 150, 1368, "unrealistic," ibid. Cf. 143, 1365 (WHITE, J., dissenting) ("I agree [with Court] reaches burdensome complaining pre-existing procedures."); Richmond 422 358, 388, 95 2296, 2312, 245 (BRENNAN, ("[T]he objective [is] protection levels effectiveness population.") original). reiterates forcefully his dissent—a rejected time. objected hold, parties argue, existence BLACKMUN affirmed (explaining expansion list include group citizens" environments dominant English). described great length "ingenuity dedication amendment." 2441. Certain facially neutral ensured "white supremacy unlawfully maintained." 2546 "If telling states communities legislated manipulated excluding Southern process." Joint Views Ten Members (Senate) relating Extension printed 196 Cong.Rec.S. 2756 (daily ed. March 1970) added), cited 177, 184. decisions Allen Elections, 393 544, 548, 89 817, 823, (1969), counter "of enacting added) omitted). Most recently, Rome 446 156, 100 1548, 1564, 64 119 (1980), observed readopted "to amelioration discrimination" (quoted 10, nn. 19, (1982)), 187, 232. hardly answer say, 134 "distinguish between" 145-146 infra, 145-146, ameliorative. occasion lessen extends cover attempt demonstrate squared language, serves silence obvious: provides: "(a) No abridgement citizen 4(f)(2), subsection (b). "(b) violation if, totality shown processes leading nomination participation class electorate representatives choice. circumstance considered: establishes numbers proportion population." test governs determination abridgment" recently amended. note 7, 28; generally 15-43. process" "often dilute emerging jurisdiction[s] severe racially polarized 227, 18. 187 (identifying "impediments still voters").

Category: 1