Document: 520 U.S. 273117 S.Ct. 1228137 L.Ed.2d 448 Thomas YOUNG, et al., Appellants,v.Kirk FORDICE al. No. 95-2031. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 6, 1997. Decided March 31, Syllabus * The National Voter Registration Act 1993 (NVRA) requires to provide simplified systems for registering vote in federal elections, including a system voter registration on driver's license application. Beginning January 1, 1995, Mississippi attempted comply with NVRA, attempting replace its "Old System'' "Provisional Plan'' that procedures both and state elections. Attorney General precleared Provisional Plan under §5 Voting Rights 1965(VRA), which forbids specified history voting discrimination from making changes "practices or procedures'' have purpose effect denying abridging right account race color. However, week before was precleared, legislature tabled legislation needed make effective On February 10, State abandoned favor "New System,'' uses election only Old System registration. made no further preclearance submissions. In this suit, appellants claim officials violated by implementing without preclearance. A three-judge District granted summary judgment, holding differences New were attributable State's attempt correct misapplication law, and, thus, not subject preclearance; had all when implement NVRA. Held: has must preclear, it sought administer after 1995. Pp. _-__. (a) Several circumstances, taken together, lead conclusion Plan, although General, "in force effect'' hence, did become part baseline against judge whether future change occurred. Those seeking intend an unlawful plan, they as soon became clear would pass laws lawful. Moreover, these events took place within few weeks: used 41 days third officials, held elections prior abandonment nor any imminent. (b) Nonetheless, included be because contains are significantly different System. Minor changes, well major, require See Allen v. Bd. Elections, 393 544, 566-569, 89 817, 832-834, 22 1. This is true even where, here, effort so long those reflect policy choices local officials. Id., at 565, n. 29, S.Ct., 831, 29. NVRA does preclude application VRA's requirements. Change invokes process works of, against, neutral impact minorities aimed preserving status quo until courts opportunity evaluate proposed change. Although imposed mandates States, Mississippi's discretionary nonministerial, reflecting exercise choice discretion Thus, appropriate matters review. __-__. (c) arguments position already efforts rejected. correctly argues decisions adopt retain system, themselves, purposes. examination system's elements context includes history, purpose, practical effect. argument merits could Preclearance necessary argument. Vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Brenda Wright, Washington, D.C., appellants. Malcolm Stewart, Brookhaven, MS, amicus curiae, special leave court. Robert E. Sanders, Morro Bay, CA, appellees. Justice BREYER 1 question us 1965, 79 Stat. 439, amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973c (§5), certain procedures-changes order Act, §1973gg seq. We hold 2 3 1993, Congress enacted 107 77, —(NVRA), take like i.e., such President, congressional Representatives, Senators. mail, §1973gg-4, various offices (including "public assistance'' services people disabilities), §1973gg-5, particularly important, §1973gg-3. specifies details about how work, including, example, type information can form. §§1973gg-3(c)(2), 1973gg-7(b). It also imposes requirements just when, how, may remove rolls. §§1973gg-6(a)(3)-(4). adds "supersede, restrict limit 1965,'' "authoriz[e] requir[e] conduct prohibited 1965.'' §1973gg-9(d). 4 Section 5 among other things, prohibits discrimination, Mississippi, "enact[ing] seek[ing] . practice, procedure respect November 1964,'' unless obtains (Attorney General) Columbia. §1973c. is, effect, determination "does will color.'' Ibid. language jurisprudence, involves retrogressive. Beer 425 130, 141, 96 1357, 1363-1364, 47 629 (1976); 28 C.F.R. §51.54(a) (1996). B case concerns three systems: first we shall call tried second Plan,'' compliance, six weeks between put into briefly explain relevant features each system. 6 Before administered which, most provided single allowed registrant (i.e., offices). Under citizen register either appearing personally county municipal clerk's office locations (such polling places) clerk his deputy visited vote. Miss.Code Ann. §§23-15-35, 23-15-37, 23-15-39(6) (1990). citizens obtaining mail-in form available agencies, public schools, libraries, places, mailing back clerk. §23-15-47(2)(a) (Supp.1996). law set forth details, requiring, contain name address attested witness, ibid., (although there some dispute parties rejected failing witness's signature). purge voters rolls if voted four years. §23-15-159 7 Plan. late 1994, secretary state, help implementation committee, prepared series designed ensure compliance new incorporated form, repeat her address, attesting witness. Secretary instructions agency personnel throughout State. committee assumed-and recommended-that Legislature insofar might prevent valid NVRA's provisions counting election. And, assumption, least one official state's told applicant list permit him federal, 8 Using registered many 4,000 25, however, bill registrations (by, allowing applicants agencies spot, having mail App. 86, eliminating witness signature application, compare id., 96, 101, §23-15-47(3) (Supp.1996), optional4-year non-voting registrants, replacing methods maintaining up-to-date rolls, 87-92, 103.) Because legislature's failure System's registration, attorney general concluded meet notified State; they, turn, asked notify registrants 9 began use what That consists forth-but applied maintains method Juris. Statement 21a. All told, modified their voter-registration rules registers Brief Amicus Curiae 4. C 10 arises out VRA, December submitted NVRA-implementing then intended make. submission essentially described called contained numerous administrative two booklets 26-43, Agency Procedures Manual, 51-60. work well. 86-104. requested 109-110. Department wrote "not interpose objection changes''-thereby preclearing changes. 17a. 11 As pointed above, around State, telling them "appears unlikely will'' revive bill; Plan's therefore elections; should write-or write-to tell who understand need separately eligible develop distinguishing voters. 20a-23a. 12 16, sent letter, another letter believe earlier now saw plan. submit "dual system'' 24a. added: 13 "In regard note that, while, instituted seek dual indeed, decision institute 1.'' 24a-25a. 14 perhaps believing sufficed, D 15 April 20, private (appellants) brought lawsuit They claimed implemented violation §5. curiae similar lawsuit, actions consolidated. 16 motion judgment. considered plaintiffs' basic claim, namely amounted administration been precleared. court ground never ratified Since held, 17 question, namely, differed System; Old. (on 1) preclear permitted count distinction due own provisions, practices. 18 plaintiffs appealed, noted probable jurisdiction. 519 ____, 117 36, 135 1127 reverse. II 19 1965 "any practice 1964.'' statute's date 1964, often, directly relevant, once normally cleared again. standard purposes determining "enact[ed]'' "seek[ing] administer'' "practice procedure'' "different'' enough itself Presley Etowah County Comm'n, 502 491, 495, 112 820, 825, 51 (1992) ("To determine voting, challenged practices existence adopted. Absent intervening our comparison''). Regardless, none asks look time than last ask consider amounts forbidden unprecleared "different from'' post-1994 1994 claims turn. 20 First, Government argue add differs System, conclude 21 voting-related procedures, but instead simply temporary law. too words, effect.'' rested upon fact "unitary'' lawful neither Governor simple show, entirely itself, agree. all, maintain years plan technically, another, provision Cf. Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 394-395, 91 431, 440, 27 476 (1971) (deeming ward effect''' requiring wards at-large though illegal required law) (emphasis original); City Lockhart 460 125, 132-133, 103 998, 1003-1004, 74 863 (1983) (numbered-post unauthorized law). But situation here. 23 case, expected unlawfulness apparent, space weeks. days, begun it. Further, These circumstances together effect''; hence 24 nonetheless agree be, been, System-the 1994. And differences. 25 minor (1969) (discussing paper ballots machines); NAACP Hampton Election 470 166, 175-177, 105 1128, 1133-1135, 84 124 (1985) (election relative filing deadline); Perkins, supra, 387, 436 (location places). §51.12 (1996) (requiring " [a]ny affecting appears indirect ''). Allen, 29 §2 §1973); McDaniel Sanchez, 452 153, 101 2224, 2238, 68 724 (1981) VRA "requires whenever covered jurisdiction submits proposal elected representatives people-no matter constraints limited them-the requirement applicable''); Lopez Monterey County, 340, 348-349, 136 273 (quoting emphasizing choices); 179-180, 1135-1136 §5). forbid To contrary, says [n]othing subchapter authorizes the'' VRA. §1973gg-9(d)(2). "neither rights remedies established section supersede, restrict, §1973gg9(d)(1). 26 Nor ability generally supra finding nonretrogressive). process; evaluation Lopez, 348-349; 555, 19, 558-559, 826, 827-828. McCain Lybrand, 465 236, 243-244, 104 1037, 1043, 271 (1984) (Without §5, successful antidiscrimination lawsuits "merely resul[t] discrimination''); South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 335, 86 803, 822, 769 (1966) (same); 328, 818 (explaining attack problems going discriminatory shifting "the advantage inertia'' potential victims discrimination). examples new, practices-practices purely ministerial, newly revised written materials containing significant, different, instructions; reporting officials; detailed kind assistance offer material forwarded rolls; matters. Insofar embody impact, review §5's process. saying this, recognize states, describing detail. says, applications serve remain confidential. §§1973gg-3(a)(1), (c)(2)(D)(ii). cannot drivers' same twice again forms). §1973gg-3(c)(2)(A). ministerial. still leaves room choice. list, may-or not-provide request. information-say, counts elections-makes discretionary, nonministerial Hence, important contrary. PCS1 30 General's letter. points objection'' comply. 31 approved, assumed pamphlet entitled "plan administratively 1995.'' 110. legislative changes; enclosed packet forms lack specificity, probably led voters-and General-to 44-50. forms-perfectly understandable "single registration'' assumption-might mislead U.S., 131-132, 1002 city "entire [t]he possible [changes], admittedly determined isolation "preexisting' Furthermore, treating differently notice 32 replies logic, read submission, explicit indication proposed, yet enacted, request approval passed bill. tries derive support pointing regulations say unenacted legislation. §§51.22, 51.35 pure correct. One logically way suggests. still, At minimum, ambiguous (1) assumption enact bill, (2) reference possibility absence legislation, 72, specify happen thereby created ambiguity regardless did. permits resolve ambiguities submitting McCain, 249, 255-257, 1045-1046, 1048-1050 (burden complete unambiguous description changes); Clark Roemer, 500 646, 658-659, 111 2096, 2105, 114 691 (1991) (relying "presumption scope construed state'') (internal quotation marks citations omitted). §§51.26(d), 51.27(c) submissions clearly detail). Hence qualify find nothing forces contrary conclusion. 33 General-if faced ambiguity-could more clarify situation, failed example. withheld she found likely occur. Again, done. §51.37(a) submissions.) Indeed, Solicitor "acknowledge[s]'' benefit hindsight, preferable'' submission. 14. Still, obtain information. Clark, 2104-2105 (The duty investigate changes). 247, 1044-1045 (Congress ""acknowledged anticipated [the] inability Department-given resources-to independently '''), quoting 392, 10. issue, course, issued rather Her added makes likely, less natural import state/federal 34 Finally, knew, approved unitary benchmark measuring subsequent retrogressive, permitting retrogressive knew emerge failed. fact, record know (e.g., tabling meant killing it; definitely changed). event, short answer Department's motive, true, refute preclearance, stating explicitly view "preclearance system.'' 25a. 255, 1049 "such after-the-fact statements particular actually 35 ordinarily rest itself. 2104-2105; Sheffield Comm'rs, 435 110, 136-138, 98 965, 981-983, 55 148 (1978). Tying documents themselves helps avoid kinds meaning intent raises here-arguments frequently arise, delay expeditious decisionmaking thousands requests clearance receives year. 2104-2105. sum, Justice, PCS2 36 specifically applies §1973gg-2(a), automatically separate procedures; If means categorically-without more-forbid not, do so. retention preclear. problem typically context-a 131, ("The council''). government light effects, administers "purpose [or] color '' so, merits. here "preclearance,'' true. III 37 reversed remanded enter enjoining appropriate. Any questions remedy instance. 659-660, 38 ordered. syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Category: 1