Document: 438 U.S. 190 98 S.Ct. 2692 57 L.Ed.2d 693 H. W. BERRY et al.v.J. D. DOLES, etc., al. No. 76-1690. June 26, 1978. PER CURIAM. 1 This appeal presents a challenge to the scope of remedy allowed by three-judge District Court for Middle Georgia failure appellees comply with approval provisions § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c (1970 ed., Supp. V). 2 In 1968, State enacted statute intended stagger terms three members Peach County Board Commissioners Roads and Revenues. The then-existing statute, adopted in 1964, provided that all posts were be filled at four-year intervals. By operation 1968 amendment, single at-large member was elected two-year term subsequent general elections. Appellees concede, court f und, constituted change voting procedures subject had been implemented without first having submitted either United States Columbia or Attorney General required 5. 3 Four days prior August 10, 1976, primary election two seats on not including post, appellants filed this action enforce requirements Appellants' requests declaratory injunctive relief acted upon until after scheduled 1976 4 On February 28, 1977, court, hearing, enjoined further enforcement such time effected compliance However, refused appellants' request set aside elections, noting "the rather technical changes made county's law amendment and, more important, apparent lack any discriminatory purpose effect surrounding use elections." expressly limiting its order prospective relief, also relied our decision Allen v. Elections, 393 544, 89 817, 22 (1969). April denied motion reconsideration. 6 Court, take position awarded case is wholly inadequate failing existing violation. Appellants assert refusing 1978, least 1980 election, leaves undisturbed effects violation, thereby acknowledging that, time, local officials may successfully disregard requirements. 7 urge us affirm judgment grounds involved which mentioned statute. Accordingly, argue, these even assuming power one alternative remedies suggested appellants, believe below correct do so. 8 At request, States, amicus curiae, has brief case. Government takes view, espoused affected prescribed Court's require prompt permits violation continue. It submission question whether staggering state necessarily racially should properly promptly conformity forth 9 Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 91 431, 27 476 (1971), decided Allen, supra, we occasion address issue now confronts us. We indicated "[i]n certain circumstances . it might appropriate enter an affording opportunity seek federal ordering new only if fail so forthcoming." U.S., 396-397, S.Ct., 441. present here make course appropriate. 10 case, appellees' undisputed obligation submit forum designated Congress discharged. conclude requirement scrutiny imposed satisfied delay. adopt suggestion shoul allowing 30 within apply under If obtained, matter will end. denied, are free renew their simultaneous 1978 election. 11 affirmed insofar holds have violated Act; reversed denies affirmative remanded instructions 5, proceedings consistent opinion. 12 ordered. 13 Mr. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 14 I join surely committed reversible error not, very least, preclearance enforced opportunity, granted, would cut short pre-1968 law. manifestly erred basis conclusion "rather technical" no "apparent effect." Nothing could clearer than district other, course, Columbia—has jurisdiction assess change. See, e. g., Supervisors, 429 642, 97 833, 51 106 (1977); 385, 435, (1971). 15 Although does reach issue, think clear hereafter obtain change, must earliest feasible time—that being regularly For entity cannot approve neutral, follows there substantial probability itself perpetrated racial discrimination voting. To permit results stand face determination precisely what designed forbid: allow burdens litigation delay operate favor perpetrators against victims possibly practices. See South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 335, 86 803, 822, 769 (1966). 16 while I, therefore, agree error, am view strong argument can sufficient Here, reasonably believed continue validly obtaining approval; thus situation quite different from cases like where duty unsettled attack. 17 If, one, cases, political units covered positive incentive flagrantly obligations proposed changes. jurisdictions then know suit brough , result right those received place. As other changes, sole noncompliance limited sanction requiring unit before instituted. 18 legislative background strongly suggests me preclude affairs. Section prevent history adhering long-established practices continually contriving laws deprive blacks newly won rights. sought place burden inertia voluntarily affecting became effective. remedial theory embraces today retard, further, objective polities possible consequence well large share implementing policy placed public private enforcement. ought benefit full briefing oral help indicate 19 regard supporting decision. While true stated procured specified period, 396, 440, context statement clearly Ibid.* 20 since disposition part my colleagues note probable down argument, 21 POWELL, concurring judgment. wiser simply below, go along reluctantly resolution bring argument. willing because consider most unlikely find reasoned denying Thus, improbable ever pass allows "renew" approved. Ante, 193. write emphasize faulted common-sense handling understand disagree view. 23 * facts procedural posture deserve fuller treatment gives them. Under Revenues County, Ga., composed members, assigned numbered posts. 1964 Ga.Laws 800, 1, p. 2627. Posts residents districts, Post large. Until simultaneously terms. Legislature providing partial Commissio ers' 2A, 2473. 3, seat, thereafter No Commissioners. longer held same posts.1 24 Elections 1970, 1972, 1974 challenge. 6, 1976—four election—that lawsuit seeking enjoin ground imprimatur 1965. A judge acting promptly, ruled preliminary injunction held. That judge, "seriously question[ing]" apparently tardiness suit—which day explained sensibly App. Jurisdictional Statement 7a. 25 After elections held, convened. concluded all, met. "Given elections," however, Id., 2a-3a, citing 571-572, 835, (1969).2 thereupon "dissolve[d] remand[ed] originating opinion required." 4a. 26 reconsideration modification court's order. appellants—for time—asked approved then, cutting 1976. n. 15-16; Brief Amicus Curiae 4. belated stating: "The problem single-judge court." 5a. Appellants, did accept invitation press court. Instead, they brought instant appeal, urging declaring open curiae support aside. Neither declare seeks never requested, Court. asks directing give preclearance. approved, argues directed "to time." 8. today, see 7, infra, carefully grant "renewed." 28 fully justified holding party participate barred injecting into requesting themselves sought. equally asking declined rule ignored express rule, parties amici raise issues raised lower courts. encourage bypass avenues them provide justification departing salutary principles. II 29 Since chosen, explanation, depart principles, briefly presented. expanded judicial enactment here, requires amendment. Nor entry enforcing future All ask ruling applied retroactively abrogate already much force plea. classic example how exercise important constitutional right, judicially cover inconsequential aspect procedure.3 Given expansion, when courts called decide retroactive distinguish minor substantive likely discrimination. credit, just this. Significantly, disturb judgment, despite prayer so.4 31 remembered imposes restrictions unique country number selected States.5 need measure common sense application underscored fact supplicants General's dispensation "at rate over 1,000 per year, means indicative submissions complied requirement, interpreted General." Sheffield Comm'rs, 435 110, 147, 965, 987, 55 148 (1978) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). When submitted, block implementation stating, 60 days, he unable effect. 411 526, 537, 93 1702, 1709, 36 472 (1973). result, left less sea," id., 1712 (WHITE, dissenting), put routine trivial movement polling precinct boundary line.6 32 although err remain dubious proper framed, still approved.7 Perhaps able perceive some distinction between setting elections—the denial upholds—and achieving essentially Because question, acquiesce remanding "with [the Court's] opinion." 33 REHNQUIST, STEVENS dissenting. 34 requested views, request. But standing parties. goes merely beyond but decides questions presented jurisdictional appellants. doing, contrary Rule 15, provides: "Only fairly comprised therein considered 35 entirety. recognize involves 1968. continuing County's relevant consideration noted interpretation, extended coverage in, (1969), enacted, reason suspect required. giving took account challenged] statutes, any, determined 572, 835. "§ location places." 388, 437. There thousands precincts places Act, lines necessary frequent intervals accommodate inevitable population shifts. interpretation locality moves line half permission Washington. rejects BRENNAN's suggestion, ante, 193, "erred [retroactive] 'rather technical' 'apparent effect.' " al o quoted 2, supra; 440. recently written: "[The] so-called 'preclearance' extraordinary broad remedies. Even Department described 'substantial departure ordinary concepts system'; encroachment sovereignty significant undeniable." 141, 984, (dissenting opinion) Harlan point describing "a revolutionary innovation American government" applies handful States." 585, 586, 841 (concurring dissenting part). One assume exercises unprecedented veto legislation personally thoughtful deliberation. But, previously noted, applications his flow Washington year—almost business day. duties him doubt care sensitivity, each procedure approval. "adopt[s] election." 192-193. remands direct "renewed" make. orders

Category: 1