Document: 501 U.S. 419 111 S.Ct. 2376 115 L.Ed.2d 379 HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners,v.ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, al. LEAGUE UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, Petitioners, v. ATTORNEY Nos. 90-813, 90-974. Argued April 22, 1991. Decided June 20, Syllabus Texas district courts are the State's trial of general jurisdiction. Their judges elected from electoral districts consisting one or more entire counties. The number in each varies, but is by voters which he she sits, pursuant to an at-large, district-wide scheme, and must be a resident that district. Although several judicial candidates same may running election, runs for separately numbered position. In primary, winner receive majority votes, election candidate with highest votes particular position elected. Petitioners No. 90-974, local chapters League United Latin American Citizens—an organization composed Mexican-American African-American residents others filed suit District Court against respondents, State Attorney General other officials, alleging scheme 10 counties diluted voting strength Hispanic violation of, inter alia, § 2 Voting Rights Act 1965. 90-813 Houston Lawyers' Association, attorneys registered vote counties, others—intervened support original plaintiffs. ruled petitioners' favor granted interim relief 1990 election. Appeals reversed, holding elections not covered 2. A separate opinion concurring judgment agreed single-member offices, such as judgeships, exempt According opinion, court judge, unlike appellate judge who acts member collegial body, single-office holder has jurisdiction coextensive geographic area authority render final decisions independently serving on court. concurrence concluded exemption justified, given compelling interest linking elective base acting alone, risk attempting break linkage might lessen minority influence making only few principally accountable electorate rather than all them partly voters. Held: Act's coverage encompasses executive officers whose responsibilities exercised they Once decides elect its judges, those conducted compliance Act, since categorically excluded coverage. Chisom Roemer, --- ----, 2371, ----. state expressed below does justify excluding offices 2's Rather, it legitimate factor considered determining whether, based "totality circumstances," dilution occurred remedied. Pp. 425-428. 914 F.2d 620 (CA5 1990), reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., KENNEDY, Julius L. Chambers, petitioners. Renea Hicks, Austin, Tex., respondents. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 we held elections, and, specifically, justices Supreme Louisiana, 1965, 79 Stat. 437, amended 1982, 42 U.S.C. 1973. this case consider whether statute also applies Texas. We hold does. * 90-974 Citizens, statewide both Texas, various individuals. They brought action officials (respondents) challenge existing countywide method electing judges. encompassed State, relied constitutional statutory grounds, issues were later narrowed include methods just counties.** Harris County, certain individuals; intervenors, supporting Because petitioners have threshold issue construction now before us, shall refer collectively "petitioners." 3 Electoral consist Eight included single county; includes two at varies 59 sit County Midland Each sits Thus, example, if there 25 vacancies year, races positions. primary 4 challenged diluting African cited example population 20% American. alleged alternative schemes using subdistricts modified at-large structures could remedy elections. 5 Following one-week trial, their claim. It had sustained burden proving under totality circumstances "as result large system [they] do equal opportunity participate political processes choice," App. Pet. Cert., 290a-291a; 300a-301a. made no findings about appropriate proven violation, urged legislature select approve scheme. announced would entertain motions enjoin future pending phase litigation, should fail adopt When failed act, (to used solely nine districts) creation prohibition use partisan Respondents appealed. 6 three-judge panel Fifth Circuit 902 293 (1990), motion rehearing en banc was granted, 322 (1990). results test inapplicable See essence, Congress' reference voters' "representatives" choice evidenced deliberate decision exclude scrutiny newly enacted test. For reasons stated our Chisom, U.S., S.Ct., reject conclusion. 7 portions joined five Judge Higginbotham his disagreement majority's conclusion within meaning concurred reversal. His distinction between Whereas Louisiana jurisdiction, even though districts, act members sole decisions. Higginbotham's characterized holders instead multi-member body," F.2d, 649 (concurring opinion), because exercises her Given "compelling alone," id., 651, "attempting . well increase it," 649, district's voters, including challenges 8 Chief Clark, while agreeing reversal grounds "expressly limited facts present case," 631 disagreed analysis opinion. He "it equally wrong say section covers none," 633 (emphasis original). Characterizing "function-of-the-office analysis" "identical concept view," ibid., Clark whenever officeholder's residence coincide, claims officeholder, regardless "function" officeholder alone body. 9 Johnson argued elections: "Several truths self-evident clear language heretofore opened process people colors. focuses voter, official. intended prohibit racial discrimination voting, inquiry being open persons, matter race color. concerned intent persons 'race color' casting ballot; function person office." Id., 652 (dissenting opinion) II 11 certiorari these cases, 498 775, 112 838 (1991), purpose considering scope As term word limitation. Nor can protection unitary right "to representatives choice" bifurcated into kinds beyond reach Act. Ante, clear, If did 1861, 12 deliberately avoid any evaluation merits concerns believe matters relevant either application embodied 2, amended, consideration possible remedies event proved, question Even assume, arguendo, basis preclude involves redrawing boundaries subdividing finding circumstances" case, evaluating evidence supports office. 13 Thus disagree respondents "single-member office" theory automatically exempts maintaining system—in Texas' link judge's residency voters—is among occurred. justification proper assess inquiry, expressly approved balance considerations. Zimmer McKeithen, 485 1297, 1305 1973), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Bd. Marshall, 424 636, 96 1083, 47 296 (1976). merely automatically, every outweigh proof dilution. 14 Two examples will explain why theory, accepted, cannot suffice place entirely First, practice procedure, closing polls noon, abridgment minority's choice, unquestionably apply restrict practices, not. Exempting altogether therefore supported. earlier, ante, 15 Second, district—and perhaps neighboring well—were shaped "an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure" found Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 340, 81 125, 126, 110 (1960), effect configuration produce unnatural distribution power different groups, least arguably required determine violated. Placing "uncouth" trivial illusory resulting impairment group's remedied without significantly impairing basis. 16 see distinguishing supreme relate brought, reverse remand further proceedings consistent 17 so ordered. 18 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE KENNEDY join, dissenting. 19 my I affirm below. ** are: Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Jefferson, Lubbock, Crosby, Ector, Midland.

Category: 1