Document: 470 U.S. 166 105 S.Ct. 1128 84 L.Ed.2d 124 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, etc., et al., Appellants,v.HAMPTON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, al. No. 83-1015. Argued Nov. 28, 1984. Decided Feb. 27, 1985. Syllabus Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provides that covered States or political subdivisions may not implement any election practices different from those in force on November 1, 1964, without first obtaining approval United District Court for Columbia or, alternatively, Attorney General. As public schools Hampton County, South Carolina, a jurisdiction, were governed by an appointed County Board Education and elected Superintendent Education. The county consists two School Districts, one where vast majority white students live, other predominantly black. Each was Trustees, who In 1982, Carolina General Assembly enacted 547, providing members to be at large rather than appointed. held simultaneously with general prospective candidates required file appellee Election Commission least 45 days before election. 547 submitted under § Act, he informed State had no objection change. But meantime, approved 549 abolish devolve their duties upon Boards which separately. trustee also scheduled election, between August 16 31. clearance 5, initially interposed objection. Nevertheless, Commission, contemplating reconsideration, continued accept candidate filings 549, same time began accepting 547. Since yet responded State's request reconsideration his date elections pursuant 549. Thereafter withdrew thereby rendering null void thereto. then effect thereto should held. Accordingly, set March 15, 1983, as day. Appellants, civil rights organizations several residents filed suit Federal Court, seeking enjoin illegal Act. court denied relief, holding violation occurred, since, although itself change scheduling filing period simply "ministerial acts necessary accomplish statute's purpose thus did require preclearance." further even if these "changes," they now been precleared along remaining provisions Held: use conjunction setting itself, changes have Pp. 174-183. (a) By opening Trustees preclearance four months later General, effectively altered deadline approximately almost six These cannot fairly charcterized "ministerial" light sweeping objectives They possibly prevented relative latecomers entering race, addition is likely draw significantly fewer voters inquiry here limited whether challenged potential discrimination. such therefore 5. 174-181. (b) said implicitly when Berry v. Doles, 438 190, 98 2692, 57 693, distinguished. Nor can validated changes, retroactively otherwise, because never him. 181-182. Reversed remanded. Armand Derfner, Washington, D.C., appellants. David A. Strauss, amicus curiae supporting appellants, special order Court. Treva G. Ashworth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, S.C., appellees. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 This appeal challenges three-judge Court's construction application 79 Stat. 437, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. That section certain jurisdictions, including this case arose, General.1 statute once proposed has 60 object. If interposed, submitting authority reconsideration. 28 CFR 51.44 (1984). Such triggers another 60-day decide continue withdraw 51.47. involved cleared prior implementation. We noted probable 467 1250, 104 3531, 82 837 (1984), reverse judgment. 2 * officials comprises school districts, 2, black.2 separate six-member Trustees. trustees Education, turn legislative delegation. 3 On February 18, apparently attempt facilitate consolidation Districts,3 provided that, beginning new election.4 Pursuant received it 27.5 April question.6 4 9, however, Governor signed designed supersede abolished Superintendent, devolving separately each District. Like coincide 1982 Candidates Implementation made contingent referendum May 1982.7 submit until June 16, 22 after 68 enacted.8 16—the response 23, He sustained its burden showing proposal eliminate discriminatory effect. "the board particularly responsive interests needs black community consistently bi-racial representation local boards both 2."9 6 Because requesting reconsider objection, through end designated period, date, officially requested reconsideration.10 At time, refused 547.11 No 7 19, based primarily possibility Board, would abolish, might consolidated but, reappraising law, concluded lacked approve consolidation. Therefore, elimination potentially impact.12 8 General's render 547—and it—null void. advice, January district "as soon possible." opined there reason reopen only changed."13 9 11, defendants various officials. complaint identified number alleged "changes" procedure, specified statute, election.14 A preliminary injunction denied, took place scheduled.15 Subsequently, panel permanent declaratory occurred.16 reasoned "change" . ., App. Juris. Statement 9a. alternative, constitute "precleared 549." Ibid. "preclearance" occur considered dispositive. interpreted 693 (1978), stand proposition after-the-fact federal validate voting procedures.17 II 10 Appellants contend preclearance, are come within scope Appellees, echoing rationale maintain 549—albeit approved—was merely step ultimately disapproved it, become nullity. fact cleared, necessarily well. alteration according appellees, "unfreezing" process temporarily suspended operation Although appellees concede legislatively Act,18 distinguish issue failure undertaken initial implementation statute. 11 need jurisdiction ever open precleared.19 case, opened but Thus 12 characterized aimed subtle, well obvious, state regulations denying citizens right vote race." Allen Elections, 393 544, 565, 89 817, 831, (1969). Our precedents recognize effectuate congressional purpose, given broad scope. Id., 567, S.Ct., 831; see Dougherty White, 439 32, 38, 99 368, 372, 58 269 (1978). Also, far exempting alterations perceived minor, Congress failed adopt suggestion debates original Act.20 13 Developments since passage provide basis concluding our cases misinterpreted intent Congress. contrary, history most recent extension reveals commitment enforcement firm. Senate Committee found "virtual unanimity among [had] studied record," S.Rep. 97-417, p. (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 186, extended. And, previous extensions specifically endorsed provision.21 14 addressed procedures exactly parallel we twice rescheduling qualifying comes Hadnott Amos, 394 358, 365-366, 1101, 1105-1106, 336 (1969); supra, U.S., 551, 570, 824, 834.22 Of course, case; 31, required. isolation forms part. recognized analogous context, issues provoke responses electorate arise shortly time.23 Under appellees' approach, years serve eve. clearly, former much greater hindering voter participation latter. Furthermore, still outstanding Potential circumstances deliberately stayed away.24 15 Appellees do seriously dispute effected requires 5.25 Rather, argue administrative effort comply already clearance, magnitude trigger requirements plainly, form determine reaches informal formal bulletin issued elections. Allen, supra.26 could evade implementing manner. Neither determinative unlikely repeated, embodied rule. affect single election.27 noted, instance extended gap preventing race. addition, November.28 Any doubt resolved placed entitled considerable deference.29 Department regulations: 17 "Any affecting voting, though appears minor indirect, ostensibly expands rights, remove elements caused change, must meet requirement." 51.11 18 Among specific examples listed "[a]ny eligibility persons remain candidates." 51.12. regulations, has, 1980, reviewed dates periods. none instances advise submission "change," occasions objections interposed.30 19 exempt literal compliance impossible. passed; hence, schedule date. legislature passed obtained event, amendment necessary, requiring submission. ad infinitum. To extent themselves dilemma, largely own making. Rather passage, allowed ample delayed action months.31 Even too late allow November, encountering significant inconvenience. respond receives information,32 selected sufficiently future preclearance. 20 us hold good faith, improvement over procedures. signified discriminatory, approved. neither absence nor good-faith removes effects.33 More fundamentally, province, below, resulted impairment vote, intended task reserved Columbia. discrimination.34 III 21 Relying alternative ground implemented being decision rendered taken place, enjoined aside appropriate remedy 30 apply stated: "If obtained, matter will end. appellants free renew [a election.]" 193, 2694. 23 From this, drew conclusion "a retroactive validation law achieved approval."35 24 Regardless fair characterization Berry, clearly facts case. here—the retention election—had decided authorities which, demonstrated, quite matter. does satisfy 5: "in some unambiguous recordable manner." 571, 834. See McCain Lybrand, 465 236, 1037, 271 (1984); Sheffield Comm'rs, 435 110, 136, 965, 981, 55 148 all standard. IV 25 Appellees' enter allowing approval. 192-193, 2693-2694. fail seek approval, forthcoming, results 1983 aside. If, determines effect, determine, exercise equitable discretion, stand.36 26 judgment violated secure remand proceedings consistent opinion. 27 It so ordered. POWELL REHNQUIST concur forth 1973c, pertinent part: "Whenever subdivision respect prohibitions 1973b(a) title determinations sentence 1973b(b) shall enact administer qualification prerequisite standard, practice, procedure institute abridging account race color, contravention guarantees 1973b(f)(2) title, unless enters person .: Provided, enforced chief legal officer official sixty submission, cause shown, expedited affirmatively indicated made. affirmative indication made, object, entered bar subsequent event indicates sixty-day following receipt reserve reexamine additional information attention during remainder otherwise accordance section. heard determined three judges 2284 Title lie Supreme Court." option added legislation " 'to speedy method States.' 246, 1044, (1984) (quoting Morris Gressette, 432 491, 503, 97 2411, 2419, 53 506 (1977)). According appellants' whole 47% 53% contains 91% student population, 46% white. 92% 8a-10a. thought board, opposed one, "be consolidating Districts One Two." 3a (order Sept. 1983). id., 17a. 52a (letter Gerald W. Jones C. Havird Jones, Jr.). 19a-21a. below brief pressure feared lead Districts. circulated petition calling abolition severing connection 2. Brief 4a 59a. 63a-64a Jr., William Bradford Reynolds). 9. 65a-66a Reynolds 67a-69a Ashworth Randolph Murdaugh III). "changes." certify Code Commissioner law. raised claim argued shortened term stated oral argument longer wished pursue claim. Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments. 22a-23a. claims subject continuing litigation 13, n. 3. 13-14. Black five seats 15. Four whites won Board. 7a, 8a-11a. Appellee 27. note, prime concern prevalence and, cases, later. pp. 12, 14, 43 (1982); H.R.Rep. 97-227, (1981), 177, 189, 191, 192. Report "Timely crucial threshold element depends voluntary timely "The non-submission documented House hearings remains surprising deeply disturbing. There numerous jurisdictions them only, all, many after, sued threatened suit. "Put simply, flouted hindered protection minority voting." 47-48, 225, 226. Generally, statutes ineffective laws authorities. Connor Waller, 421 656, 95 2003, 44 486 (1975) (per curiam ). types changing paper ballots machines, excluded undermining purpose. "Congress chose include exceptions indicating intention how small, subjected scrutiny." 568, 833. 6-7, 8; 34-35, 182-184 (rejecting limit cover produced objections; '[t]he seemingly innocent insignificant analyzed context' ") testimony Drew Days, Assistant General). 43, 374, rule employees take unpaid leaves while campaigning elective office barrier candidacy formidable in" Allen. contexts, broadly residence candidates, City Rome States, 446 156, 160-161, 100 1548, 1553-1554, 64 119 (1980); municipal boundaries, Richmond 422 2296, 245 (1975); reapportionment redistricting plans, Georgia 411 526, 93 1702, 36 472 (1973); location polling places, Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 91 431, L.Ed. 476 (1971). Steelworkers Usery, 429 305, 611, 50 502 (1977) (recognizing, union democracy adverse impact qualify long election). Only period. post, candidates. 12. mere speculation. appellant Benjamin Brooks, attempted names ballot positions February, told ended August. 16a-17a. 174. supra (rule promulgated Education). 35 produce "[w]hile adversely people, others precisely type sought prevent, numbers smaller"). 6,000 participated whereas less half voted 23-24. 29 See, e.g., 131, 979, (1978) (deference accorded especially extensive role played drafting explaining Congress); 39, 372. Amicus Curiae 13-14, 7. 31 imply unable referendum. Department's explicitly ratification obtained. 51.20 Thus, into full 129 16. 32 §§ 51.8, 51.35, 51.37 33 189 ("even valid reasons, example, home rule, 'jurisdictions always care avoid discriminating against process' 94-295, (1975)). 29, (that 5; "[t]o mean legislation, allegedly exempted coverage—even racial discrimination"). 34 250, 1046; 42, 374; 534, 1707; 383-385, 434-435; 555, 826, 10a. gave end." previously acknowledged reached question remedy. erroneously outside engaged weighing factors weighed nature complained of, reasonably clear 5." 396, 440. determination committed distinct latter substantive

Category: 1