Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/166/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:49:26+00:00

Document:
pursuant to Act No. 547, and no elections were held pursuant to Act No. 549. Thereafter the Attorney General withdrew his objection to Act No. 549, thereby rendering null and void Act No. 547 and the November elections held pursuant thereto. The South Carolina Attorney General then informed the Election Commission that Act No. 549 was in effect, and that an election pursuant thereto should be held. Accordingly, the Commission set March 15, 1983, as election day. Appellants, two civil rights organizations and several residents of Hampton County, filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking to enjoin the election as illegal under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court denied relief, holding that no violation of § 5 had occurred, since, although Act No. 549 itself was a change under the Voting Rights Act, the scheduling of the election and the filing period were simply "ministerial acts necessary to accomplish the statute's purpose, and thus did not require preclearance." The court further held that, even if these acts were "changes," they had now been precleared along with the remaining provisions of Act No. 549.
Held: The use of an August filing period in conjunction with a March election, and the setting of the March election itself, were changes that should have been submitted to the Attorney General under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Pp. 470 U. S. 174-183.
(a) By opening the filing period for School District Trustees before preclearance and scheduling the election for a date four months later than that approved by the Attorney General, the county effectively altered the filing deadline from a date approximately two months before the election to one that was almost six months before the election. These changes cannot fairly be characterized as "ministerial" in light of the sweeping objectives of the Voting Rights Act. They possibly prevented relative latecomers from entering the race, and, in addition, a March election is likely to draw significantly fewer voters than an election held simultaneously with a November general election. The inquiry here is limited to whether the challenged changes have the potential for discrimination. These changes did have such a potential, and therefore should have been precleared under § 5. Pp. 470 U. S. 174-181.
(b) The changes cannot be said to have been implicitly approved when the Attorney General withdrew his objection to Act No. 549. Berry v. Doles, 438 U.S. 190, distinguished. Nor can the Attorney General be said to have validated the changes, retroactively or otherwise, because they were never before him. Pp. 470 U. S. 181-182.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., concurred in the judgment.
change has been submitted to the Attorney General, he has 60 days in which to object. If an objection is interposed, the submitting authority may request reconsideration. 28 CFR § 51.44 (1984). Such a request triggers another 60-day period for the Attorney General to decide whether to continue or withdraw his objection. § 51.47. The District Court held that § 5 did not require the changes in election practices involved here to be cleared by the Attorney General prior to their implementation. We noted probable jurisdiction, 467 U.S. 1250 (1984), and now reverse that judgment.
As of November 1, 1964, the Hampton County, South Carolina, public schools were governed by appointed officials and an elected Superintendent of Education. The county comprises two school districts, School District No. 1, where the vast majority of white students live, and School District No. 2, which is predominantly black. [Footnote 2] Each District was governed by a separate six-member Board of Trustees. These trustees were appointed by a six-member County Board of Education, which in turn was appointed by the county legislative delegation.
in Hampton County and consistently has appointed biracial representation on the local boards of trustees for both School District 1 and School District 2. [Footnote 9]"
Because the State was contemplating requesting the Attorney General to reconsider this objection, the County Election Commission continued to accept filings under Act No. 549 through the end of the designated filing period, August 31. On that date, the State officially requested reconsideration. [Footnote 10] At the same time, the Election Commission began accepting filings under Act No. 547, in case the Attorney General refused to withdraw his objection to Act No. 549. On November 2, the date of the general election, the Attorney General had not yet responded to the request for reconsideration, and elections for County Board members were held pursuant to Act No. 547. [Footnote 11] No elections were held pursuant to Act No. 549.
Act No. 549 was now in effect and that an election for school district trustees should be held "as soon as possible." The State Attorney General further opined that there was no reason to reopen the filing period, "as only the date of the election has changed." [Footnote 13] Accordingly, the Commission set March 15, 1983, as election day.
here because it was required only by the Attorney General's failure to approve Act No. 549 before the scheduled election date, and because it was undertaken only to effect the initial implementation of the statute.
We need not decide whether a jurisdiction covered by § 5 may ever open a filing period under a statute that has not yet been precleared. [Footnote 19] In this case, Hampton County not only opened the filing period for School District trustees before preclearance, but it also scheduled the election for a date four months later than that approved by the Attorney General. Thus, the county effectively altered the filing deadline from a date approximately two months before the election to one that was almost six months before the election.
"the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race."
"Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, even though it ostensibly expands voting rights, or even though it is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change, must meet the Section 5 preclearance requirement."
28 CFR § 51.11 (1984).
Appellees argue that these changes in voting procedures were exempt from preclearance because literal compliance with § 5 was impossible. The Attorney General did not approve the November election date until after that date had passed; hence, it was necessary to schedule another election date. Also, it is said that, if the legislature had passed a statute setting a March election date and submitted it to the Attorney General, preclearance might not have been obtained by the date of the March election. In that event, yet another amendment would have been necessary, requiring yet another submission. The process might have continued ad infinitum.
To the extent that appellees found themselves in a dilemma, however, it was largely of their own making. Rather than submitting Act No. 549 shortly after its passage, which would have allowed ample time for preclearance before the scheduled opening of the filing period, the State delayed this action for two months. [Footnote 31] Even after Act No. 549 received clearance too late to allow the election to be held in November, appellees might still have submitted the new election date without encountering significant inconvenience. Because the Attorney General must respond to any submission within 60 days after he receives the necessary information, [Footnote 32] appellees need only have selected an election date sufficiently far in the future to allow preclearance.
More fundamentally, it is not our province, nor that of the District Court below, to determine whether the changes at issue in this case in fact resulted in impairment of the right to vote, or whether they were intended to have that effect. That task is reserved by statute to the Attorney General or to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Our inquiry is limited to whether the challenged alteration has the potential for discrimination. [Footnote 34] The changes effected here did have such potential, and therefore should have been precleared under § 5.
"If approval is obtained, the matter will be at an end. If approval is denied, appellants are free to renew to the District Court their request for [a new election.]"
Id. at 438 U. S. 193.
Regardless of whether this is a fair characterization of the holding of Berry, it clearly has no application to the facts of this case. The changes we have identified here -- the retention of an August filing period in conjunction with a March election, and the scheduling of the March election -- had not even been decided upon by state authorities at the time the Attorney General approved Act No. 549. That statute provided for an August filing period and a November election, which, as we have demonstrated, is quite another matter. Even an informal submission of a change in voting procedures does not satisfy the requirements of § 5: the change must be submitted "in some unambiguous and recordable manner." Allen, 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 571. See also McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236 (1984); United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm'rs, 435 U. S. 110, 435 U. S. 136 (1978). A change that was never submitted at all does not meet this standard. The Attorney General cannot be said to have validated these changes, retroactively or otherwise, because they were never before him.
We therefore reverse the District Court's judgment that § 5 was not violated by appellees' failure to secure approval of these changes, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUSTICE POWELL and JUSTICE REHNQUIST concur in the judgment.
"Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, . . . such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification . . . does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification . . . : Provided, That such qualification . . . may be enforced without such proceedings if the qualification . . . has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification. . . . In the event that the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."
The option of obtaining preclearance from the Attorney General, rather than from the District Court for the District of Columbia, was added to the original legislation "to provide a speedy alternative method of compliance to covered States.'" McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236, 465 U. S. 246 (1984) (quoting Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491, 432 U. S. 503 (1977)).
According to appellants' complaint filed in the District Court, the county as a whole is 47% white and 53% black. School District No. 1 contains 91% of the white student population, and its schools are 46% white. School District No. 2 is 92% black. App. 8a-10a.
According to the court below, it was thought that an elected board, as opposed to an appointed one, would "be responsive to consolidating School Districts One and Two." App. to Juris. Statement 3a (order of United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Sept. 9, 1983).
See App. 52a (letter of Gerald W. Jones to C. Havird Jones, Jr.).
App. to Juris. Statement 19a-21a. In their complaint in the court below and in their brief in this Court, appellants alleged that Act No. 549 was enacted in response to pressure from white citizens of Hampton County who feared that Act No. 547 might lead to consolidation of the two School Districts. The complaint alleged that white residents of School District No. 1 circulated a petition calling for the abolition of the County Board of Education and the County Superintendent, thus severing the connection between School District No. 1 and School District No. 2. Brief for Appellants 5.
App. to Juris. Statement 4a (order of United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Sept. 9, 1983).
Id. at 63a-64a (letter of C. Havird Jones, Jr., to William Bradford Reynolds).
Of the six Board members elected in the November election, three were black and three were white. Brief for Appellants 9.
App. to Juris. Statement 65a-66a (letter of William Bradford Reynolds to C. Havird Jones, Jr.).
Id. at 67a-69a (letter of Treva Ashworth to Randolph Murdaugh III).
The complaint also alleged two other "changes." One of these was the failure to certify the results of the May referendum to the State Code Commissioner, as required by state law. Appellants have not raised this claim in this Court. Appellants also argued in the District Court, and in their brief in this Court, that Act No. 549 had effectively shortened the term of the County Superintendent of Education. Appellants stated at oral argument that they no longer wished to pursue this claim. In addition, the complaint alleged that the abolition of the Board of Education violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. App. 22a-23a. These claims are the subject of continuing litigation in the District Court. Brief for Appellants 13, n. 3.
Id. at 13-14. Black candidates were elected to all five seats on the District No. 2 Board on March 15. Four whites and one black won seats on the District No. 1 Board. App. to Juris. Statement 7a, n. 2.
"[a]ny action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."
App. to Juris. Statement 8a-1 la.
Brief for Appellee School Districts 27.
"Timely submission of proposed changes before their implementation is the crucial threshold element of compliance with the law. The Supreme Court has recognized that enforcement of the Act depends upon voluntary and timely submission of changes subject to preclearance."
"The extent of non-submission documented in both the House hearings and those of this Committee remains surprising and deeply disturbing. There are numerous instances in which jurisdictions failed to submit changes before implementing them and submitted them only, if at all, many years after, when sued or threatened with suit."
"Put simply, such jurisdictions have flouted the law and hindered the protection of minority rights in voting."
S.Rep. No. 97-417, supra, at 47-48. Generally, statutes that are subject to § 5 are ineffective as laws until they have been cleared by federal authorities. Collnor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam).
"Congress chose not to include even these minor exceptions in § 5, thus indicating an intention that all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to § 5 scrutiny."
393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 568.
S.Rep. No. 97-417, supra at 6-7, and n. 8; see also H.R.Rep. No. 97-227, supra at 34-35 (rejecting proposal to limit § 5 to cover only those changes that had produced the most objections; "[t]he discriminatory potential in seemingly innocent or insignificant changes can only be determined after the specific facts of the change are analyzed in context'") (quoting testimony of Drew Days, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General).
See also Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 439 U. S. 43 (1978), where we held that a Board of Education rule requiring employees to take unpaid leaves of absence while campaigning for elective political office was a barrier to candidacy "as formidable as the filing date changes at issue in" Hadnott and Allen. In other contexts, we have interpreted § 5 broadly to require preclearance of changes in residence requirements for candidates, City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 446 U. S. 160-161 (1980); alterations of municipal boundaries, Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 (1975); reapportionment and redistricting plans, Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973); and the location of polling places, Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971).
See Steelworkers v. Usery, 429 U. S. 305 (1977) (recognizing, in union democracy context, potential adverse impact of requiring candidates to qualify long before election).
Only one black candidate filed for election as a trustee of District No. 1 during the August filing period. He was ultimately elected to the post along with four white candidates. Brief for Appellants 27, and n. 12. That other potential candidates were prevented from filing is not mere speculation. Appellants alleged in their complaint that three black citizens of Hampton County, including appellant Benjamin Brooks, attempted to have their names placed on the ballot for trustee positions in February, but were told that the filing period had ended the previous August. App. 16a-17a.
See supra at 470 U. S. 174.
See also Dougherty County, supra, (rule promulgated by County Board of Education).
See H.R.Rep. 97-227, at 35 (rejecting proposal that § 5 should be limited to changes that produce most objections; "[w]hile some changes may adversely affect a greater number of people, others may have precisely the type of discriminatory impact which Congress sought to prevent, even though the numbers involved are smaller").
Appellants state that over 6,000 Hampton County voters participated in the November, 1982, general election, whereas less than half that number voted in the March, 1983, special election. Brief for Appellants 23-24.
See, e.g., United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm'rs, 435 U. S. 110, 435 U. S. 131 (1978) (deference should be accorded to Attorney General's construction of the Act, especially in light of the extensive role played by the Attorney General in drafting the statute and explaining its operation to Congress); Dougherty County, supra, at 439 U. S. 39.
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-14, and n. 7.
Appellees imply that they were unable to submit Act No. 549 until after it had been approved in the May referendum. But the Department's regulations explicitly provide for submission of statutes before such ratification has been obtained. See 28 CFR § 51.20 (1984). Thus, the Act could have been submitted as soon as it was signed into law on April 9, a full 129 days before the filing period opened on August 16.
See 28 CFR §§ 51.8, 51.35, 51.37 (1984).
See S.Rep. No. 97-417, at 12, n. 31 ("even when changes are made for valid reasons, for example, reapportionment or home rule, jurisdictions may not always take care to avoid discriminating against minority voters in the process'") (quoting S.Rep. No. 94-295, p. 18 (1975)). See also Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 565, n. 29 (that a change was undertaken in an attempt to comply with the Act does not exempt it from § 5; "[t]o hold otherwise would mean that legislation, allegedly passed to meet the requirements of the Act, would be exempted from § 5 coverage -- even though it would have the effect of racial discrimination").
See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. at 465 U. S. 250; Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U.S. at 439 U. S. 42; Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 534; Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. at 400 U. S. 383-385; Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 393 U. S. 555, n.19, 393 U. S. 570.
App. to Juris. Statement 10a.
"the nature of the changes complained of, and whether it was reasonably clear at the time of the election that the changes were covered by § 5."
Perkins v. Matthews, supra, at 400 U. S. 396.
The determination whether a change has a discriminatory purpose or effect, which is committed by statute to the Attorney General, is distinct from the determination whether failure to submit the change requires that the election be set aside. The latter determination must be made by the District Court, after the Attorney General has passed on the substantive nature of the change.

References: § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 § 51
 § 51
 § 5
 § 5
 § 51
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 5
 v. 
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v.