Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 57

26 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

integration,  both  before  and  after  the  passage  of  the  fed­
eral  civil  rights  laws,”  and  its  strategic  annexations 
appeared  to  be  an  attempt  “to  provide  for  the  growth  of
a  monolithic  white  voting  block”  for  “the  impermissible 
purpose of minimizing future black voting strength.”  Id., 
at 465, 471–472. 

Two years before Pleasant Grove, the Court in Hunter v. 
Underwood, 471 U. S. 222 (1985), struck down a provision
of  the  Alabama  Constitution  that  prohibited  individuals
convicted of misdemeanor offenses “involving moral turpi­
tude”  from  voting.    Id.,  at  223  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).  The  provision  violated  the  Fourteenth  Amend­
ment’s  Equal  Protection  Clause,  the  Court  unanimously 
concluded, because “its original enactment was motivated
by  a  desire  to  discriminate  against  blacks  on  account  of 
race[,]  and  the  [provision]  continues  to  this  day  to  have
that effect.”  Id., at 233. 

Pleasant  Grove  and  Hunter  were  not  anomalies. 
In 
1986, a Federal District Judge concluded that the at-large
election  systems  in  several  Alabama  counties  violated  §2. 
Dillard  v.  Crenshaw  Cty.,  640  F. Supp.  1347,  1354–1363 
(MD  Ala.  1986).  Summarizing  its  findings,  the  court 
stated  that  “[f ]rom  the  late  1800’s  through  the  present,
[Alabama] has consistently erected barriers  to keep black 
persons  from  full  and  equal  participation  in  the  social,
economic, and political life of the state.”  Id., at 1360. 

The  Dillard  litigation  ultimately  expanded  to  include
183 cities, counties, and school boards employing discrim­
inatory at-large election systems.  Dillard v. Baldwin Cty. 
Bd. of Ed., 686 F. Supp. 1459, 1461 (MD Ala. 1988).  One 
of those defendants was Shelby County, which eventually 
signed  a  consent  decree  to  resolve  the  claims  against  it.
See  Dillard  v.  Crenshaw  Cty.,  748  F. Supp.  819  (MD  Ala. 
1990).
  Although  the  Dillard  litigation  resulted  in  overhauls  of 
numerous  electoral  systems  tainted  by  racial  discrimina­