Document: 429 U.S. 642 97 S.Ct. 833 51 L.Ed.2d 106 UNITED STATESv.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI et al. No. 76-489. Feb. 22, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of Eddie Thomas for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. 2 In November 1970, the Board Supervisors Warren County, Miss., submitted county redistricting plan Attorney General his approval under § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965.1 new was replace in effect since 1929. After requesting and receiving additional information, entered an objection plan. Despite this objection, held elections 1971 pursuant 1970 elections, sought reconsideration objection. refused withdraw 1973 filed complaint, 5, District Court Southern Mississippi. complaint alleged that General's rendered unenforceable election districts prior were malapportioned Fourteenth Amendment. Three forms relief requested: (1) declaration implementation violated 5; (2) injunction against implementing or any other until there had been compliance with one two procedures required by (3) order be developed implemented after being found acceptable 5. 3 A properly convened three-judge court granted Government's summary judgment. its later judgment, because upcoming 1975 County could not scheduled "without abridging rights guaranteed Fifteenth Amendments Constitution," stayed subject procedure set out court's order. provided submit review and, if no interposed, then accordance stipulated schedule. event stated deadline, objected plan, contained infirmities respect one-person-one-vote requirements Amendment, would consider plans prepared both parties adopt appropriate used according ordered 4 informally comment indicated reservations concerning validity plans. This impasse continued deadline order, which time directed their proposed consideration. hearing, adopted despite fact approved procedures. "neither dilutes black voting strength nor deficient one-man, one-vote considerations." It county's reorganized held. United States appealed. has jurisdiction 42 U.S.C. 1973c 28 1253. Section provides alternative methods State political subdivision covered may satisfy requirement federal scrutiny changes First, institute action Columbia declaratory judgment change does have purpose right vote on account race; second, it General. No practice enforced unless succeeded declined object proposal him. See n. 1, supra. Attempts enforce subjected enjoined district suit brought voter, Allen v. Elections, 393 544, 554-563, 89 817, 826-830, 22 (1969), behalf States, 1965, §§ 12(d), (f), 1973j(d), (f). 6 Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 91 431, 27 476 (1971), separate imposed limitation determinations made courts entertaining actions enjoin violations: 7 "What foreclosed such what Congress expressly reserved consideration determination whether 'of denying race color.' " U.S., at 385, 135. 8 Adhering Allen, inquiry local "limited 'a (voting) but scrutiny.' 383, 434, quoting supra, 561, 829. holding subsequently reaffirmed Connor Waller, 421 656, 95 2003, 44 486 (1975). 9 Perkins, involved private suits voters claiming noncompliance procedures; we now hold same limitations apply inheres Congress' only issue actually discriminates "coverage" questions. 558-559, 827-828. 10 case twice exceeded permissible scope inquiry. apparently decided did comply Amendment.2 Findings Fact Conclusions Law approving "proceeded premise . Amendment protections accorded proposed, instituted own plan," determined "will lessen opportunity citizens participate process elect officials choice." instances below erred deciding questions constitutional law;3 should from cleared Accordingly, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 11 So ordered. requires, relevant part, whenever seeks administer "any qualifica- tion prerequisite voting, standard, different force 1964," "such qualification, prerequisite, practice, will color." Until enters effect, person denied failure procedure. As permits first not, within 60 days, interposed change. All are heard court. 79 Stat. 439, 1973c. There dispute Act, realignment procedure, Columbia. they without rights. elaborate, appears abridged conducted old districting used. Although record clear, source confusion power seems arisen seek merely also asked redistricted manner met eliminated malapportionment districts. however, Government section addressed 1964. Beer 425 130, 138-139, 96 1357, 1362-1363, 47 629 (1976). allegedly existed long before 1964 were, therefore action.

Category: 1