Document: 465 U.S. 236 104 S.Ct. 1037 79 L.Ed.2d 271 Thomas C. McCAIN and William Spencer, etc., Appellantsv.Charles E. LYBRAND et al. No. 82-282. Argued Oct. 31, 1983. Decided Feb. 21, 1984. Syllabus Prior to 1966, Edgefield County, S.C., was governed by a three-member Board of County Commissioners, consisting the Supervisor, who elected at-large, two members were appointed Governor. There no residency requirements for Commissioners. In state legislature enacted statute creating new form government county altering its election practices. A Council established, divided into three districts purpose electing members. Voters throughout cast votes candidate from each district, in district with most occupies that district's seat on Council. The 1966 not submitted federal officials approval as required § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965. 1971, amended so increase number districts, thus members, five, necessarily resulting boundaries. This amendment Attorney General his pursuant Act, and, after requesting receiving additional information (including copy concerning previous candidates, results, boundaries), stated he did object "to change question." Thereafter, appellants, black voters residing county, brought class action Federal District Court against appellee officials, challenging county's practices constitutional grounds. Ultimately, protracted litigation appellants had filed an complaint alleging never been held General's request indicated considered all aspects electoral scheme, including changes effected since 1971 retained such changes, lack objection submission constituted those well rendered failure preclear moot. Held: cannot be deemed have effect ratifying embodied Act. Pp. 243-258. (a) light structure, purpose, history, operation State seeks preclearance voting procedures General, rather than declaratory judgment United States Columbia, must do unambiguous recordable manner. does contemplate "submission" occurs when merely becomes aware legislation question. Act's purposes would subverted if could approved proposal neither properly nor fact evaluated him. 243-250. (b) Here, him determine whether either boundaries or discriminatory effect, but appear pass represented setback minority voters. requested received suggest approve enable ascertain covered made much less evaluate compared prior order needed pre-1966 law practical effects, information. 250-254. (c) When jurisdiction adopts makes clearly defined practices, sending general constitutes enactment themselves independently subject preclearance. certain identified fails identify other ones adequate latter failed inform provisions which recodified various contained might give rise inference discrimination. To extent there any ambiguity scope request, structure requirement plainly counsel resolving ambiguities favor submitting circumstances this case. 256-257. Reversed remanded. Laughlin McDonald, Atlanta, Ga., appellants. Barbara Etkind, Philadelphia, Pa., amicus curiae. Karen LeCraft Henderson, appellees. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 South Carolina altered County's their 1965.1 amended, modifying approval. response provided documentation support submission, statute. stating question case is can enactment. We hold approved. 2 * As November 1, 1964, local political authority vested Supervisor Commissioners.2 chairman member Board, at large four-year term. over public roads, matters relating taxes expenditures, matters. seats offices. These commissioners Governor, also terms, upon recommendation majority delegation county-wide straw vote prospective appointees. commissioners. limited administrative ministerial powers.3 3 On June Assembly 1104, effective matter it signed Governor 7, 1966. created office Commissioners abolished expiration incumbents' terms. broad legislative powers created,4 qualify under individual qualified voter one register district. however, are at-large: largest two-year annually elect chairman. 4 521, "An Amend 1104 . So Increase Number Districts And Seats."5 increased five. Necessarily resulted Otherwise, alter elections conducted basic scheme established first 6 sent letter stating: "In accordance Section 1965, herewith copies" eighteen listed recent enactments, included regarding County.6 Department responded clearance "After preliminary examination H2206 [the amendment], we sufficient question."7 therefore officials—maps showing current population registration statistics, returns, "a now force"—and noted time limitation consideration begin run relevant "necessary H2206" provided.8 forwarded "concerning further clarification (H2206)" Department, Act.9 amended," then stated: "The interpose objections question."10 II 7 Carolina, commenced 1974 Specifically, they alleged appellees, at-large method diluted strength malapportioned. entered malapportionment claim, reversed appeal. Lytle v. Election, 376 F.Supp. 304 (D.S.C.), rev'd, 509 F.2d 1049, 1032 (CA4), cert. denied, 419 1032, 95 515, 42 308 (1974). After years unsuccessful settlement negotiations, claim enjoined until adoption election, R. 27, 28 (Orders April 17, 1980 April, 22, 1980). few months later, vacated ordered proceedings Court's intervening decision City Mobile Bolden, 446 55, 100 1490, 64 47 (1980), 31 (Order August 8, 8 While continuing press Court, complaint, three-judge convened decide claim. That court reviewed Carolina's concluded Department's "indicates review Act] encompassed implemented 1966." Juris. Statement 12a. find, different before Nevertheless, both changed increasing size council reenacted remaining provisions, "renders moot superseded provisions." Id., 13a. 9 obtaining views Solicitor urged summary reversal judgment, probable jurisdiction, --- ----, 103 3109, 77 1365 (1983), reasons follow, reverse. III 10 Fifteenth Amendment commands: right citizens shall denied abridged account race, color, condition servitude." U.S.C. §§ 1971-1973 (1976 Supp. V)11 Congress "unremitting ingenious defiance" command nearly century parts Nation. Katzenbach, 383 301, 309, 86 803, 808, 15 769 (1966). case-by-case unsatisfactory uncover remedy systematic areas: lawsuits too onerous timeconsuming prepare, obstructionist tactics determined perpetuate discrimination yielded unacceptable delay, even successful often methods E.g., H.R.Rept. 439, 89th Congress, 1st Session, 9-11 (June 1965), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2437. decided shift advantage inertia perpetrators evil victims," U.S., 328, S.Ct., 818, "stringent remedies" designed "banish blight racial voting" once all, id., 308, 808. 11 "preclearance" mandated perhaps stringent these remedies, certainly extraordinary.12 It prohibits jurisdictions engaged violations implementing 1964 pending scrutiny racially effect. language provides applies only proposed procedures." Beer States, 425 130, 138, 96 1357, 1362, 629 (1976). Statutory constituting "effective laws unless [they are] cleared 5." Conner Waller, 421 656, 2003, 44 486 (1975) (per curiam). rationale "uncommon exercise" congressional power sustained validity presumption "resorted extraordinary stratagem contriving rules kinds sole perpetuating face adverse decrees" likely engage "similar maneuvers future evade remedies itself." supra, 334, 335, 821, 822 (footnote omitted). provision must, course, interpreted prophylatic historical experience reflects. See, e.g., McDaniel Sanchez, 452 151, 101 2224, 2237, 68 724 (1981). 12 originally enacted, subdivision desiring implement obtain panel Columbia holding "does will denying abridging race color" practice implemented. Stat. 439. proviso 5, alternative measure: within 60 days permitted change. 13 original rights bill contain method; concerns arose route unduly delay implementation nondiscriminatory legislation, appears added provide speedy compliance States." Morris Gressette, 432 491, 503, 97 2411, 2419, 53 506 (1977). history sparse, ibid, exist controversy surrounding indicate way intended substantive protections sacrificed name expediency, though logically anticipate opt actions occasions interposed objection, see Session 26 1965); Hearings S. 1564 Before Senate Committee Judiciary, 237 (1965) (Statement Katzenbach). previously recognized proceeding "basic mechanism" Sheffield 435 110, 136, 98 965, 981, 55 148 (1978), "provision gives rapid rendering enforceable." Allen Elections, 393 544, 549, 89 817, 823, 22 (1969); Georgia 411 526, 538, 93 1702, 1709, 36 472 (1971). Indeed, irrespective avenue chooses, has same burden demonstrating motivated impact voters, 137, 2229, (1981); (1972), confronted "difficult issue." 558, 828, (1969). 14 evaluating use procedure remembered "was part because acknowledged anticipated inability given resources—to investigate respect subdivisions Act." Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 392 n. 10, 91 431, 439 27 476 Moreover, apparent more opts expeditious method: silence consent method, affirmatively states may present State's itself ambiguous. potential particularly pronounced detailed regulations governingpreclearance submissions,13 statement being 5. several times, provision.14 extensions "vital element" ensure subterfuges promptly discovered enjoined." 397, 91st (July 28, 1969). But vital allowed be. Unfortunately appeared "States rarely obeyed mandate section, Government timid enforcement." H.R. 4249 Rep. McCulloch). Few submitted; handful interposed: "Where passed laws, generally Justice." House 220 (1969) Mitchell). 1970 extension believed largely responsible gains achieved participation, 94-196, 94th 10-11 (1975), "widespread submit attempting change" recently viewed "significant evidence need requirement." S.Rept. 417, 97th 2d (1982), 1982, pp. 177, 189. attempted unsubmitted process itself, widespread noncompliance requirement, acute shortly passage combined absence independent mechanism monitor circumvention eliminate goals 227, Recent efforts finally many 1965 unqualified endorsement. Ibid.15 16 rejected suggestion "Act contemplates 'submission' what manner," instead "[a] fair interpretation requires some manner regulation directly Whitley Williams, 571, 834, More "While inaction may, circumstances, constitute change, ever him." (1978). faithful while leaving ample room minimizing "potential severity remedy," 504, 2420, IV 17 admittedly Act,16 conceded Act.17 undisputed review.18 Accordingly, ratify invalidates fashion appropriate relief. 18 observed, focus entirely Ante, 245. title unambiguously effected—an districts—and served define request. An correspondence ante, 240-241, shows preclearance,19 indicates change20 it.21 19 Thus apparently County. shoulder nondiscriminatory. 20 held, boundaries) alternative, 21 significance attached wholly unwarranted. plain identification evaluation approve: benchmark allowing quantify compare earlier ones. His receipt approve. obtained Act,22 scheme—and unaffected amendment—were effects. He information.23 Just "no argue" complex" "should without information," 540, 1710, (1973), argument record lacking carries little weight. require wild flight imagination precleared, ask explain changes,24 embarked task gathering necessary alterations own just done amendment. unlikely kept secret preclearing 23 concluding insufficient finding actually amendment, note completing promulgation governing submissions.25 shed correct letter, make clear nature valid "submission." See CFR 51.2(c) (1972).26 was, understandably, specific consideration.27 Finally, 40a-42a, after-the-fact statements relied determining particular precleared analogous Georgia, C.A. C76-1531A (ND Ga. Sept. 30, 1977), aff'd mem., 436 941, 2840, 56 782 24 erred viewing submission's encompassing features preclearance.28 adopted date raises, statutory places establish discriminatory. case, 25 design one; predicated risk attempt circumvent afforded Act; proof (the non-persuasion) placed jurisdiction; submissions method—adopted convenience practices—should carefully construed protect remedial aims assessment Congress' intent guard diminution potency provision, continue insist submitted. conclusion moot, inconsistent foregoing principles. summary, below resting factual course reviewing ourselves "left definite firm conviction mistake committed"29 overturn erroneous. moot.30 reverse remand consistent opinion. ordered. 29 BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST concur judgment. States. Covered enters approving accepts explicitly them failing prescribed period. post, 244-249. Joint Appendix 142-153. Ibid; generally, Blanding Dubose, 1334, 1335 (D.S.C.1981), 454 393, 102 715, 70 576 (1982). authorized buy sell property, exercise eminent domain, appropriations levy taxes, services, receive disburse funds, incur indebtedness, issue bonds, prescribe accounting officers employ employees. officer member. February 23, 1967 employment permissive mandatory. 1968 1318. 171-177. amendments Brief Amicus Curiae, 1983, 1a-2a (Letter July 1971). Defendants' Exhibit X, 1. 2. Y. entire text our assume full text. Z. Pub.L. 89-110, 437, extended 1970, 91-285, 84 314, 1975, 94-73, 400, 97-205, 131. codification follows: "§ 1973c. Alteration qualifications procedures; denial abridgement rights; judge court; appeal Supreme "Whenever prohibitions set forth section 1973b(a) based determinations sentence 1973b(b) enact seek administer qualification prerequisite voting, standard, practice, force whenever second 1968, third 1972, institute qualification, prerequisite, contravention guarantees 1973b(f)(2) title, person comply procedure: Provided, enforced chief legal official sixty good cause shown, facilitate expedited made. Neither affirmative indication made, object, bar subsequent enjoin enforcement procedure. event sixty-day period following reserve reexamine comes attention during remainder otherwise section. Any heard judges 2284 lie Court." 1973c Proposed guidelines published comment Register, Fed.Reg. 9781 (May 1971), final form, 18186 (Sept. codified 51.2(c). supra. committee report expresses concern heed General. cites officials' 1976 system, infra, 29, example defiance 13. Part 55. expressly found. 6a. parties stipulated. questions violation (1) (2) covered, 5's satisfied, (3) relief appropriate. Lockhart ---- 3, 998, 1001 74 863 (1983). stage litigation: initially 383-385, 434-35, (1971); 558-59, 827-28, Nor preclearance—the stipulated required. Given stipulation, understandably effort precisely preclearance, briefing agree fully explored remand, suggested: terms comparison former reallocation Council, positions counterparts, applicable 130-131. found: 'There dispute should have, not, preclearance." appellees' view consists statute, enactment, contention Quite simply, never, implication, asked purported so: did. indeed manifestly it; connection it. For example, stated, H2206, you submitted." X (emphasis supplied). construing ascribed involved, significant correspondents Assistant Civil Division. surely knew presumed chosen regard, phrase "change question" unavailing, counterproductive. Form presumably reflect departmental policy, intentions. letters containing language, notice submission. Particularly legislature's repealing existing reenacting along ones, post-1964 imply Obviously, recognize assumed precleared. context understandable. First, Second, "now force," implicitly representing pertinent law. Supra 241. notably initiative, appellees correctly point out rigorously early 11, (1971) (citing table prepared Department). obviously fact, reasonable infer buttressed assumption If explanation least difficult comprehend. testified experience, legitimate statutes Supra, 248. testimony, seems quite unrealistic suppose consciously allow comment. Under regulations, "clearly forth" "adequate disclose difference between situation voting." 51.2(c), 51.5, 51.10(a)(4) (1972); Among things, include affecting 51.10(a)(2), "statement certifying yet administered, why made." simply reflects every enforced. Further, encompass changes—precleared not—that 1964. Another subsection strongly urges that, addition about "specific consideration," "any administration put coverage began changes. already refer changes." 51.10(b)(4) (1972). Naturally, differences analytical vacuum, scheme. 1001, distinction questions: occasion. Even elements submitted, review. situation, (1977), plain: postponing validly come end timely complete submission." (Emphasis supplied.) burdens respecting met Gypsum Co., 333 364, 395, 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). 30 holding, unnecessary us address presented appellants: council-administrator 1976—objected General—was

Category: 1