Opinion ID: 418086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose of the remand

Text: 13 The district court, in its original order, neglected to discern whether the at-large voting procedures were created with the intent to discriminate. The plurality opinion issued in Bolden concluded that a successful fourteenth amendment dilution claim must demonstrate that the challenged practice was adopted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. The Supreme Court further concluded that the trial court and the fifth circuit had applied an incorrect standard in determining that the at-large election procedures were violative of the Constitution. Although Bolden is a plurality opinion, it appears that six of the justices agree that discriminatory purpose (intent) is a necessary element of a plaintiff's claim of dilution. Additionally, the Court indicated that proof of intent must be substantially more direct than the proof offered in the original Brown case. 14 The trial court, upon remand, received additional evidence, held further hearings and issued a subsequent order in accordance with the new standard enunciated in Bolden.