Document: 411 U.S. 526 93 S.Ct. 1702 36 L.Ed.2d 472 GEORGIA et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES. No. 72—75. Argued Feb. 21 and 22, 1973. Decided May 7, Syllabus On November 5, 1971, the State of Georgia submitted to Attorney General for consideration under § 5 Voting Rights Act its 1971 House reapportionment plan. Two weeks later, requested additional information, which was received on January 6, 1972. March 3, General, after citing combination, inter alia, multimember districts, majority runoff elections, numbered posts, objected plan, being unable conclude that it did not have a discriminatory racial effect voting. The state legislature then enacted superseding 1972 15 rejected by 24 as overcoming previous objections. United States brought this suit enjoin holding elections plan decided against new reapportionment. A three-judge District Court held came issued an injunction. Hedl: 1. Georgia's changes, potential diluting Negro voting power, are 'standards, practices, or procedures with respect voting' within meaning Act, cf. Allen v. Board Elections, 393 544, 89 817, 22 Pp. 531 535. 2. applying permissible regulation, placed burden submitting party prove racially purpose voting, failed meet burden. 536—539. 3. claim seasonably object may well be moot in view his timely objection but any event lacks merit General's regulation statutory 60-day period begins run from time necessary information is furnished reasonable comports Act. 539—541. 4. Elections having been conducted Court's stay order, required, future will enjoined until withstanding clearance submitted. P. 541. 351 F.Supp. 444, affirmed remanded. Harold N. Hill, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., appellants. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 12(d) 1965 amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973j(d), conducting Representatives legislative law. Northern agreed certain aspects law ambit 1973c, State, subject provisions 5,1 had obtained prior either Columbia. Accordingly, without reaching question whether 'denying abridging right vote account race color,' injunction.2 appeal. We noted probable jurisdiction, staying enforcement judgment pending disposition 409 911, 232, 34 172. 2 Following 1970 Census, Legislature set out reapportion Representatives, Senate, federal congressional electoral districts. here concerned only Representatives.3 result legislature's deliberations (hereinafter plan) that, compared 1968 scheme, decreased number districts 118 105, increased 47 49. Whereas apportionment generally preserved county lines, not: 31 49 56 single-member irregularly crossed boundaries. boundaries nearly all were changed, many instances representatives per district altered. Residents some counties formerly into Under continuing law, candidate receiving less than votes cast position required participate election. Ga.Code Ann. 1513. And each designate seat he running, referred 'numbered post.' 34—1015. 3 Section forbids implementing change 'voting qualification prerequisite standard, practice, procedure first obtaining declaratory Columbia proposed 'does denying no 60 days. 1973c. Pursuant requirement, 1971. representative Department wrote requesting further needed assess impact tendered plan.4 This 1972, formally State's letter cited combination extensive departure policy adhering lines. basis these plus particular changes structure black 'unable does voting.' stated therefore felt obligated 'interpose plans.' 4 immediately repealed predecessor. 105 128, 32. Twenty-two 37 still 15, 24. Assistant stated, part: 6 'After careful analysis redistricting I must satisfactorily remove features found objectionable your submission, namely, multi-member (runoff) requirement discussed my you interposing earlier submission. reasons enunciated must, behalf S.B. 690 reapportioning Representatives.' 7 When resolved would take steps enact present lawsuit. 8 claims inapplicable both because reach 'reapportionment' constitute 'in force 1, 1964.' If applicable, claimed unconstitutional applied. also challenges two conduct procedure, claiming, first, cannot finding fact has effect, and, second, made allowed 9 * Despite election 1964, followed plainly sufficient invoke if section reaches substance those changes. simple inventory procedures, rather reality changed practices they affect voters. It seems clear reorganization creation place areas amounted substantial departures things real undertaken part 5. 10 decisions compel conclusion sort included cognizable In South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 86 803, 769, we upheld basic constitutionality Black dissented extent every constitutional, precisely describing broad sweep 5: 11 'Section goes provide covered 4(b) can way amend constitution laws relating trying persuade Federal do citizens their color.' U.S., at 356, S.Ct., 833 (concurring dissenting opinion). 12 applicability such conclusively established opinion, dealing four companion cases, applied range constitutional With '(t)he history whole supports Congress intended enactment altered even minor way.' Id., 566, 832. One Fairley Patterson, involved at-large supervisor 'standard, challenged affected dilution power absolute prohibition casting ballot. See Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 555, 84 1362, 1378, 506 (1964).' 569, 833. reached threatened dilute implicitly recognized similar more sweeping arising legislatures. 565—566, 583—586, 831—832, 840—842 (Harlan, J., concurring dissenting). 13 Had disagreed interpretation Allen, ample opportunity statute. After bills extend during case repeatedly discussed,5 extended five years, substantive modification Pub.L. 91—285, Stat. 314, 315. conclude, then, correctly interpreted design when 'the gives vote, recognizing includes 'all action make effective." 14 Another measure decisiveness controls actual practice since decided. Georgia, example, clearly believed Its submission 'made pursuant 5,' explained 'was time, . unnecessary submit plans 1965.' objected, resubmitted Other read controlling. brief advises us December 381 post-Allen presented various approval. posture case, House, including shifts effect. question, rather, value definitional terms beyond doubt exists, Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 141—144, 91 1858, 1867—1869, 29 363. teaching Allen,6 reaffirmed Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 431, 27 476, hold correct deciding Act.7 length 308—337, 808—823, reaffirm exercise Fifteenth Amendment. II 16 By performance obligation pass submissions promulgated published Register administrative regulations, 28 CFR Part 51. appellants regulations authorization, application forth standards decision fully define provided 17 true, appellant contends, itself authorize promulgate regulations. But silent employ submissions, governing contents object, all. Rather reading statute grant him unfettered discretion standards, administration sensitive area, chosen instead formulate publish objective ground rules. conflict itself, head Executive department' 'prescribe government department, (and) distribution business .,' surely authority Morehead, 243 607, 458, 61 L.Ed. 926; Smith States, 170 372, 18 626, 1074. 51.19, employed states proof party, refrain objecting review material satisfies persuaded contrary, satisfy himself submission.8 specify degree certainty plan's impact, remedied 19 Although objections consistent attack legitimacy described above contending unless actually contained 20 assessing claim, important focus entire scheme That portion essentially freezes alternative 'merely rapid method rendering enforceable.' 549, 823. plaintiff proof.9 What same procedure. Though choice language sent model precision, context notified clarity sustained proving free allocation possible order find means administering obligation. Any stringent standard might rendered formal dead making available far smoother path clearance. thus least lawful effective. appellant's final contention untimely, so should gone simply moot, establishing explicitly plan,10 period. event, merit. 23 promulgating dealt several limit calendar days count allotted period, parties whose seek reconsideration obtain ruling request, shall commence receives satisfying enumerated requirements. 51.3(b)—(d). initial incomplete it, information.11 His s 51.18, providing request regulatory provision received. data above-mentioned commenced date, days—on 25 argue granted provides suspending complete Here again, effectuation difficult complex one, one adequate information. There serious irrelevant evaluation plan.12 Yet, denied suspend tendered, plausible response inadequate it. He leave wished advantage add acrimony therefore, facet wholly Act.13 III 26 For foregoing reasons, affirmed. Since, however, disputed reason inequitable require time. remanded instructions tenders obtains favorable Affirmed instructions. Chief BURGER, result. 30 concur mandate (1969). previously expressed reservations correctness holding. 397, 441, 476 (1971) (Blackmun, judgment). WHITE, whom POWELL REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 32 put qualifications procures alteration color, submits interposed official ensuing 24, shortly thereafter sued use neither approval nor judgment. applicable prevented going 33 agree light our cases re-enactment statutes. Contrary Court, interpose contemplated there barrier arguable sparse merely says go enters objection, whatsoever filed suffice foreclose effectiveness legislation unconstitutional. believe, visit upon consequences uncontrolled General. Surely, valid officer considered too busy give attention them, them governors different political persuasion. Neither, think, anticipate could discharge duty stating forbidden realistic assume expected good-faith deemed necessary, up mind did, thereto. 35 long upheld, 769 (1966), remains matter sovereign authorities before insist initiate litigation carry test device sufficiently low percentage voted elections. why forced shoulder where colorless country's highest legal professes inability legality? effect? Given proper familiar adversary cast; appear solid basis—at cause charge usually imports—for insisting judicial Moreover, issues between litigative bear, known examined intelligent institute As is, left sea; need announce convinced discriminatory. My idea what 4, 1973b(a). provision, otherwise terminate coverage securing used past years. litigation, provide, consent entry 'he believe' years preceding filing action. Thus, determining decree state, tests devices prohibited past. issue termination vel non, single statute, other untoward implementation believe amendment able saying evidence equipoise. POWELL, 38 WHITE comply act indeed intrusion, incompatible system, advance review.* minimum, assuming affirmative ambivalent one. qualifies 4(b), 1973b(b). Covered 50% eligible voters registered 1964 presidential identical criteria amended stipulated 4(b). 446—447. No Senate asked census maps districts; white non-white population 1968, primary general candidates ran; data, race, elected representatives; bills. See, e.g., Hearings Subcommittee Committee Judiciary H.R. 4249, 5538, Similar Proposals, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 18, 83, 130—131, 133, 147 149, 154—155, 182—184, 402—454; Constitutional Bills Amend 1965, 2d 48, 195—196, 369—370, 397—398, 426—427, 469. David L. Norman, Deputy Civil Division, testified 'from court decisions, changes.' Hearings, supra, 507. point say, open passage follows: 'Appellees (Fairley Patterson) apply atlarge legislation. They contend failure requirements, though approved court. Appellees urge courts. 'We reject narrow construction appellees '. argument problem arise establish scope; another conflict.' 564—565, 831, 833, caveat implicit support appellants' practical problems emerged elapsed case. adopted designed minimize conflicts based Fourteenth Amendment attacks plans. Where prescribed decree, Connor Johnson, 402 690, 691, 1760, 1761, 268. litigated deferred determination regarding discrimination. Finally, presenting administrative-judicial overlap small. Of reapportionments objected-to argued occurred. appropriate unaffected vote. decide show existence remand. Title pertinent part, that: satisfied notify authority. determines enter conflicting, resolve shall, above-described authority.' very shift discrimination requiring bring challenge seeking relief.' 335, 822, 769. Ga.Senate Bill Mar. 9, 'preliminary examination' materials led 'that insufficient evaluate properly accordance Sections 51.10(a)(6) 51.18(a) Procedures Administration please assist following information: ..' 51.10 states: 'With redistricting, annexation, enable change. Such include items listed paragraph (b) section. manner 51.18(a).' 51.10(b) 'strongly urges' produce relevant Virtually see n. falls categories 51.10(b). supra. allow frivolous repeated delays vital concern States. here, upholding validity most assuredly prejudge unwarranted shown. Furthermore, exclusive mode preclearance finds unreasonable, objects 'may enforce Columbia.' vested officials veto 'distorts government.' 358, 834, (1966) appraisal Harlan, who characterized construed 'a revolutionary innovation American 585, 841, (1969) assure rights denied, abridged, infringed 'on condition servitude.' Indeed, legislation, duty. disagreement unprecedented local acts authorities, noxious selective few

Category: 1