Document: 413 U.S. 345 93 S.Ct. 2591 37 L.Ed.2d 648 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, etc., et al., Appellants,v.State of NEW YORK al. No. 72—129. Argued Feb. 27—28, 1973. Decided June 21, Syllabus Sections 4 and 5 Voting Rights Act 1965, as amended, are designed to prohibit use tests or devices, alteration voting qualifications procedures, when purpose effect is deprive a citizen his right vote. apply in any State political subdivision thereof which Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, 1968, 'test device,' with respect Director Census Bureau that less than half voting-age residents were registered, voted presidential election November. These determinations effective publication not judicially reviewable. Publication suspends effectiveness test device, may then be utilized unless three-judge District Court for Columbia no such device has been used during 10 preceding years 'for denying abridging vote account race color.' The section provides direct appeal Supreme Court. also institute an action pursuant § Columbia, declaratory judgment proposed procedures 'does have will statute permits change enforced without court proceeding if it submitted he interposed objection within 60 days. Neither General's failure object nor bars subsequent private enjoin enforcement change. Such shall determined by appealable General, July 31, 1970, filed Federal Register determination New York defined Act, this was published next day. On March 27, 1971, Director's counties Bronx, Kings, York, 'less 50 per centum persons age residing therein 1968.' December 3, seeking declaring three had State's color' §§ thus inapplicable counties. Pursuant stipulation, United States its answer 10, 1972, alleging, inter alia, knowledge information form belief truth York's allegation literacy administered discriminatorily. 17, motion summary judgment, supported affidavits, April 3 formally consented entry sought State. Appellants their intervene 7. opposed claiming that: untimely, suit pending more four months; publicized early February, appellants did deny they knew pending; failed allege appropriate supporting facts; appellant claimed victim discrimination; appellants' interests adequately represented States; delay would prejudice impending elections; still could raise discrimination issues state federal courts York. 13 denied granted While pending, disclosed attorney who executed affidavits begun employment NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., until 9, Justice Department attorneys met two individual January 1972 course investigation. Held: 1 1. words 'any appeal' 4(a) encompass would-be, but unsuccessful, intervenor, properly lies Pp. 353—356. 2 2. invervene light fact all other circumstances case, abuse discretion motion. 364 369. Affirmed. Jack Greenberg, City, appellants. A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., Washington, D.C., appellee States. 6 George D. Zuckerman, 7 Mr. BLACKMUN delivered opinion 8 This from district comes us direct-review provisions Pub.L. 89 110, 79 Stat. 438, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(a).1 appellants2 seek review order dated 13, unaccompanied opinion, intervene3 instituted against behalf Kings. one that, filing suit, voter prescribed named color,' language meaning 4(a), 1973b 1973c, are, therefore, 9 In addition intervene, Court, same order, judgment. based upon formal consent Assistant charge Civil Division, States, consistent Government's theretofore filed, 'to under Section 1965 (42 1973b(a)),' App. 39a. accompanying affidavit reciting, 'I conclude, Acting there reason believe past Kings Bronx color, except isolated instances substantially corrected which, present practice cannot reoccur.' 42a—43a. contend here should because (1) unjustifiably declined oppose judgment; (2) initiated litigation Southern compel compliance Act; (3) possessed 'substantial documentary evidence,' Jurisdictional Statement 7, offer opposition 11 Faced initial question whether jurisdiction, appeal, denial we postponed issue hearing case merits. 409 978, 310, 34 240. 12 * 1973,4 clearly indicates assist effectuation Fifteenth Amendment, even though Amendment self-executing, insure citizen's abridged color. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 301, 86 803, 15 769 (1966); Apache County 256 F.Supp. 903 (DC 1966). 5, 4(c) defines phrase device' mean requirement person prerequisite registration demonstrate ability read, write, understand, interpret matter, educational achievement particular subject, possess good moral character, (4) prove voucher registered voters members class.' 1973b(c). 14 4(b), now applies specified date, reviewable court. 1973b(b). determines, 1973b(a). states lie Court.' And 'shall retain jurisdiction subsection five after reopen alleging 16 whenever made 4(b) enact administer qualification voting, standard, practice, procedure different force effect' 1968.5 what done Unless enters 'no comply qualification, prerequisite, procedure.' contains proviso, however, 'has sixty days submission.' entered bar party Here again, 'and II 17 Act. following 35 Fed.Reg. 12354. 36 5809. 18 original complaint Columbia. Court's them intervention directly 19 'substantially' agrees kind.6 Brief 21 n. 15. suggests dismissed established demonstrated permissive intervention. Appellee 22—23. We must determine ourselves, course, scope our since 'jurisdiction courts—their power adjudicate—is grant authority Congress beyond litigants confer.' Neirbo Co. Bethlehem Corp., 308 165, 167, 153, 154, 84 L.Ed. 167 (1939); Mitchell Maurer, 293 237, 244, 55 162, 338 (1934). 20 jurisdictional simply phrased: appeal,' second paragraph includes intervenor. Certainly, subject broad construction; said include meaningful judicial progress lawsuit. That intended apparent expressed concern restraints color removed quickly possible 'open door exercise constitutional rights conferred almost century ago.' H.R.Rep.No.439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., (1965). See S.Rep.No.162, pt. 6—7 (1965) U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, p. 2437. Indeed, to, buttressed, 2004 Revised Statutes, amended respective Acts 1957, 1960, 71 637, 74 90, 78 241, codified 1971. When consideration Congress, 1971(c) already empowered civil protect deprivation interference threat, coercion, intimidation. 1971(g) further provided request court, 'it duty judges so designated assign at earliest practicable date . cause every way expedited.' Further, final Despite existing statutory provision hasten removal barriers vote, determined, statutes encountered serious obstacles various regions country,' painfully slow, part intransigence local officials repeated delays process.' supra, 9. U.S., 309—315, S.Ct., 808—811, Allen Board Elections, 393 544, 556 817, 826, 22 (1969). produced response recognized problem contrasts earlier providing only 'from judgement' 1971(g). broader viewed Congress' about hastening resolution suits involving rights, see F.Supp., 907, prompts conclude unsuccessful intervenor's Appeals. conclusion relevant precedent. It long settled intervenor government-initiated antitrust Expediting 29.7 California Co-op Canneries, 279 553, 559, 49 423, 425, 73 838 (1929); Sutphen Estates 342 19, 20, 72 14, 96 (1951); Cascade Natural Gas Corp. El Paso Co., 386 129, 132, 87 932, 935, 814 (1967). 23 Earlier Term, Tidewater Oil 151, 408, 375 (1972), held lodged exclusive appellate over interlocutory, well orders Government cases. holding, emphasized speed review.' Id., 155, 411. As noted above, similar need adjudicating justify dissimilar treatment parallel 24 Further support result supplied specific 28 1253,8 allowing granting interlocutory permanent injunction 'in action, required heard judges.' party' 'as otherwise law.' does incorporate refer 1253. former relates appeal'; latter speaks party.' difference obvious, purport manifest. 25 erred intervene. III 26 originally enacted, related period years, paucity 1964. 439. enacted Amendments 1970. 91—285, 314. new legislation, among things, ten, rather five, proceding and, year, 1968 election. Also, 1970 suspended Federal, State, election' prior August 6, 1975, regard covered subdivision. 1973aa. Oregon Mitchell, 400 112, 131—132, 91 260, 268, 27 272 (1970) (opinion Black, J.). concerns They became thereto determinations, hereinabove described, Census. clear definite target amendments. See, e.g., 116 Cong.Rec. 6659 (remarks Sen. Cooper); id., 20161 20165 Congs. Celler Albert, respectively). pendency legislative proceedings redrafting congressional senate assembly lines,9 action.10 complaint, later, alleged certain Constitution, Art. II, Election Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 150 168, (the read write English, administration test, presentation evidence lieu test), 6a; requirements remained suspended; enactment City Elections English-Spanish diploma certificate conformity beginning 1964 continuing through exception 1967, drives summer increase number 29 stipulated file pleading 1972. admitted averred belief, 1967. sufficient plaintiff's intention abridge basis 30 Administrator 'which Kings,' Chief Elementary Secondary Educational Testing Department, Clerks Brooklyn Borough Offices Elections. 15a—32a. stated those where suspension ignored overlooked steps taken resolve problem. conducted voter-registration directed particularly highdensity black population areas. memorandum, motion, presented history tests11 concluded, '(s)ince never administering discriminate leading disrupt process brought.' Memorandum 4—5. 332, 820. 31 Two one-half weeks consent, moved. 'an investigation consisted examination records selected precincts each county, interviews familiar activity Puerto Rican neighborhoods counties.' 40a. reached conclusion, 42a—43a, quoted 349. 32 Appellants' asserted successful deprived protections afforded 5; 'would legally bound' thereby simultaneously York; necessarily fail.' 45a.12 gerrymandered Assembly, Senatorial Congressional districts effect, Ibid. Thus, said, disposition might impair impede registering public office. 46a. thrice counsel judgment.13 'At time inquire (appellants) government's position sections continue applied 33 There Eric Schnapper, allegations contained affiant advised redistricting laws wished submit material arguments approval; another papers being prepared informed considering institution suit; afternoon telephone first 48a—51a. With appellees' brief memorandum points authorities. suggested investigate facts,' namely, 'whether differences rates whites non-whites, do (sic) unequal discriminatory education. Gaston 395 285, 1720, 309 (1969).' suggestion answer. 65a—66a. took six grounds. untimeliness months, article appeared February Times, action. facts. third lack requisite interest none application test; rather, subordinate real invalidating reapportionment assembly, senate, districts, evidenced fourth adequate representation fifth jeopardize primary elections offices Senate, delegates upcoming Democratic National Convention. sixth others Plaintiff's Law Opposition Motion Intervene 1—8. Like reasons General. 67a—70a. 71a—72a. alter ground, others, timely neither 21.14 available education non-white children inferior white 'this resulted disparities illiteracy eligible instant action.' 73a—74a. Thus 'a full evidentiary before making finding discriminated race.' Finally, 'should approved desired plaintiff defendant soliciting responsible interested parties requiring undertake thorough facts.' 38 promptly Alter Judgment. 117a. 39 Subsequently, while additional facts came authorized consideration. above-described begin 'Justice Stewart Fortune investigation; although recall informing can remember informed.' Reply 1; 36. IV 40 foregoing detailed recital necessary discretionary nature called review. Our task whether, time, 41 Intervention governed Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 24.15 Whether permissive, once apparent, both Rule 24(a) 24(b), 'timely.' If denied. satisfied timeliness.16 Although point progressed factor timeliness, solely dispositive. Timeliness circumstances.17 sound discretion; abused, court's ruling disturbed review.18 these accepted principles mind, readily proper motion's untimeliness, discretion: 43 reasonably concluded known informative Times discussing controversial aspect suit;19 comment community leaders; size astuteness membership staff organizational appellant; questioning themselves investigating 44 We, confine evaluation just mentioned, record amply demonstrates fashion allegedly At point, months old critical stage. answered indicated 13a. reliance answer, step remaining either status concede aware existence. obvious strong likelihood revealed incumbent appellants, stage proceedings, take immediate affirmative supplying concerning citizens presenting itself intervene.20 steps. chose, rely representations conversations. content matter dispute. 46—47. appears apellants preparing, 'night 6—7,' elections. supra. 45 3. unusual warranting (a) injury, personal him, resulting (b) claim inadequate unsubstantiated, (c) foreclosed challenging plans grounds product improper racial gerrymandering, cf. Gomillion Lightfoot, 339, 81 125, 110 (1960), Wright Rockefeller, 376 52, 603, 512 (1964), (d) free renew required, 1973b(a), (e) event, near future 1975. 46 4. view rapidly approaching nominating petitions participate elections, potential seriously disrupting electoral general figures 1960 census old. 47 therefore untimely (D.C.1966); Paramount Pictures, 333 1100 (SDNY), aff'd sub nom. Syufy Enterprises 404 802, 92 79, (1971). makes unnecessary consider conditions satisfied. 48 MARSHALL decision case. DOUGLAS, dissenting. 51 mighty agencies Albany agree historic record1 it, careful look let ended agreement between friendly allies. 52 specifically aimed York—particularly Counties. pointed out debates included, 50% voted, voting. 6654, 6659. discriminating race., 6660. blacks illiterate education, any, second-class schools elsewhere. 6661. wherever educated unconstitutional illiterate. 5533. tended deter registering, said. greater impact minorities higher whites. 5532—5549. 53 face history, call witness single document make feeble protest lily-white. defense offer. desultory acted illustrated requires request. capitulated completely. yet blacks, Americans ancestry, victimized clamor representation. Only offers earmarks whitewash. 54 testified Congress:2 '(I)t Negro most Deep Counties subjected onscene enrollment registrars participation ghettos Northern cities Los Angeles—where use. non-literacy jurisdictions like Chicago, Cleveland Philadelphia, ratios Angeles (especially) ..' 56 Yet, assertions given attempt develop along lines. 57 get exemption started moved Out blue 4, decree exempting 58 alleges deterred whites, social gerrymandering widespread discouraged operating facilities, teachers, expenditures capita. 59 assumed, represents cases sort. But transactions contest, represent interest. 24(a)(2) allowed. 135 136, 936, 937, 814. plainly evident eager willing partner allies foreclose inquiry into minority What produce, knows. All requested fresh air publicity fair trial produce allowed ventilate cozy arrangement suppress proved, relief South. 309. evidence, equally North. 61 BRENNAN, 62 my view, leave turns facts, development governing doubtless small. ultimately stake obtain applicability 2.2 million minority-group According total affected previous exemptions combined 100,000. 63 coverage result, contention urge—namely, nullify intent extend class appellants—was laid 64 upholding untimely. announcement contest states, benefit hindsight, 65 'Obvious intervene.' Ante, 367. 66 timeliness reference began would-be intervenors learned movants needed interests. Diaz Drilling 427 F.2d 1118, 1125 (CA5 1970); Prior represented. connection contents dispute.' 368. dispute, filed,* become dispute later Dismiss Affirm. Even then, offered assurances attorneys, accurate substance conversations government.' Affirm, Sept. 67 reasonable settled. move learning longer record, obligated filed. Since was, nonfrivolous unquestionably erroneous. I dissent. 'To assure separate unit, brought ten .. 'An accordance 2284 Title 'If judgment.' describe themselves, Association Advancement Colored People, Region Conference Branches; duly qualified County, county. Assembly member Senate. 44a. 44a—47a, differentiate intervention, subdivisions (b), respectively, 24. one, other, claimed. oral argument, right. Tr. Oral Arg. 8. suggest entitled permis- sive 9; 39. distinction types 'No imposed Georgia 411 526, 1702, 472 (1973), plan, diluting power, 'standard, voting,' Hearings H.R. 6400 Subcommittee House Committee Judiciary, ser. 2, pp. 90—91 'In Acts, wherein complainant, 'Except law, denying, notice hearing, 15, appellees argument complete set statistics October 41. Civ. 1460, September 59a. know dates correct. clear, data redrawing lines fall claims imminent drawn according census. lateness obtaining figures, concomitant impossibility highly unlikely able clearance legislation day circulating primary. favorable bypass submission plan 41—42. literacy' completed grade elementary school 'accredited Commonwealth Rico instruction carried predominantly English language.' 28, 1966, issued require Rico. Op.Atty.Gen.N.Y., 121, 123. Legislature work altering boundaries. N.Y.Laws 11. 24, 1973c. rejected ground lacking applicable regulations forth 18186—18190 redefining boundaries districts. 76. changes approval 5. takes 'that statements him government attorneys.' 47. Schnapper whatever commencement, pendency, existence action; throughout 1971 Hampshire daily paper regularly carry story best co-counsel 21; receive ruled motion; (5) learn (6) drafted 'throughout night 6—7.' 91a—92a. 'Rule 24.—Intervention '(a) 'Upon anyone permitted action: confers unconditional intervene; applicant relating property transaction situated practical interest, applicant's parties. '(b) Permissive conditional main law common. relies executive governmental officer agency regulation, requirement, exercising unduly adjudication parties.' Iowa University Research Foundation Honeywell, 459 447, 449 (CA8 1972); Smith Petroleum Service, Inc. Monsanto Chemical 420 1103, 1115 Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Rhodes, 403 (CA10), cert. denied, 394 965, 1319, 567 (1969); Kozak Wells, 278 104, 108—109 1960); 7A C. Miller, Practice Procedure 1916 (1972); 3B J. Moore, 24.13(1) (2d ed. 1969). F.2d, 449; 1115; 109. McDonald E. Lavino 430 1065, 1071 24.13, 24—524. 48. news page. Its three-column headline 'Lefkowitz Bar Watch.' recited 'had Washington exempted supervision voting' mentioned attack Chairman Citizens Voter Committee, Congressman, Manhattan Presidents, described reply attack. 91—93. acknowledged precluded 18—19. protests statement. 90-year-long segregated system last point; proof showed inference fact. He asserts moreover cast practice. disturbing say least. disposed classic example inappropriateness procedure. dissent, findings made. 4249, 91st 296 'The motion.' 10.

Category: 1