Legal Document

520 U.S. 471117 S.Ct. 1491137 L.Ed.2d 730 Janet RENO, Attorney General, Appellant,v.BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.George PRICE, al., Appellants,v.TISBOSSIER al. Nos. 95-1455, 95-1508. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 9, 1996. Decided May 12, 1997.* Syllabus** Appellee Bossier Parrish School Board (Board) is subject to preclearance requirements §5 Voting Rights Act 1965 (Act) and must therefore obtain approval either General or District for Columbia before implementing any changes a voting "qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, procedure.'' Based on 1990 census, redrew its 12 single-member districts, adopting redistricting plan that had recently precleared use in elections parish's primary governing body (the Jury plan). In doing so, rejected proposed by NAACP, which would have created two majority-black districts. The objected preclearance, finding NAACP plan, not been available when was originally approved, demonstrated black residents were sufficiently numerous geographically compact constitute majority districts; that, compared with this alternative, Board's unnecessarily limited opportunity minority voters elect their candidates choice thereby diluted strength violation §2 Act; withhold where necessary prevent clear violation. then filed action Court, appellant Price others intervened as defendants. A three-judge panel granted request, rejecting appellants' contention change's failure satisfy constituted an independent reason deny under related argument court still consider evidence discriminatory purpose §5. Held: 1.Preclearance may be denied solely basis covered jurisdiction's new "standard, procedure'' violates §2. This has consistently understood combat different evils and, accordingly, impose very duties upon States. See Holder v. Hall, 512 874, 883, 114 2581, 2587, 129 687 (plurality opinion). Section 5 freezes election procedures jurisdiction until proves do purpose, will effect, denying abridging right vote account race. Beer States, 425 130, 140, 96 1357, 1363, 47 629. It designed only those effects are retrogressive. Retrogression, definition, requires comparison existing see Holder, supra, at S.Ct., 2587 opinion), necessarily implies benchmark against "effect'' measured. 2, other hand, applies all jurisdictions uses dilution claims hypothetical, undiluted plan. Making compliance contingent §2, appellants urge, would, intents purposes, replace standards thus contradicting more than 20 years precedent interpreting See, e.g., Beer, supra. Appellants' contentions reading supported decision, General's regulations, public policy considerations rejected. Pp. ____-____. 2.Evidence showing dilutes minorities' power relevant establish "intent retrogress'' §5, so there no need decide today whether such types intent §5's inquiry ever extends beyond search retrogressive intent. Because cannot say confidence considered proffered show reapportionment dilutive, aspect court's holding vacated. (a) 2 "relevant'' within meaning Federal Rule Evidence 401, fact dilutive impact makes it "more probable'' acted retrogress "it without evidence.'' does not, course, mean plan's dispositive inquiry. Indeed, if were, effectively incorporated into result finds unsatisfactory. conducting motivation enacting changes, courts should look guidance Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 252, 97 555, 50 450, sets forth framework examining purpose. (b) unable determine deemed irrelevant adopted Board. While some language opinion consistent today's existence less options least inquiry, also appears endorsed notion even apply test remand well address additional arguments erred refusing ongoing injunction remedy remaining vestiges dual school system. 907 F.Supp. 434, vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined full, GINSBURG BREYER, except insofar Part III inconsistent views expressed concurrence J. concurring opinion. part judgment, GINSBURG, joined. STEVENS, dissenting part, SOUTER, Deval L. Patrick, Boston, MA, No. 94-1455. John W. Borkowski, Washington, DC, Michael A. Carvin, appellees. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 Today we clarify relationship between 1965, 79 Stat. 437, 439, amended, 42 U.S.C. §§1973, 1973c. Specifically, questions: (i) whenever §2; (ii) always "the . race color'' We answer both negative. * Parish §1973c, members who elected from districts serve 4-year terms. When census revealed wide population disparities among App. Juris. Statement 93a (Stipulations Fact Law ¶82), decided redraw equalize distribution. 3 During process, plans. considered, initially rejected, Police Jury, plan), govern own elections. Just months before, contained Id., 88a (Stipulations, ¶68). None residents. ¶82) (under statistics three highest concentrations contain 46.63%, 43.79%, 30.13% residents, respectively); id., 85a ¶59) (population none containing majority). adoption maintained status quo regarding number black-majority parties stipulated "retrogressive.'' 141a ¶252) ("The ''). Appellant George Price, president local chapter presented second option-a each but voting-age 98a ¶98). Over vocal opposition white alike, voted adopt own, reasoning almost certainly again require split 46 electoral precincts. 4 But hopes rapid dashed interposed formal objection "new information'' Department Jury-namely, NAACP's "black districts.'' 155a-156a (Attorney August 30, 1993, letter). letter asserted violated Act, §1973, because "unnecessarily limit[ed] choice,'' 156a, alternative. Relying 28 CFR §51.55(b)(2) (1996), provides shall "necessary amended [42 §1973],'' concluded warranted denial 157a. declined reconsider decision. Ibid. seeking Columbia. request over dissent one judge. 437 (D.D.C. 1995). squarely alleged §5: "We hold, every question, political subdivision violate "effect' "purpose' prong section violation.'' 440-441. Given holding, quite properly refusal reach out issue dicta us, STEVENS insists, "assume record discloses "clear violation' §2.'' post, __-__ (opinion part). That yet court. did, however, reject "must 5.'' 445. noted probable June 3, 517 ----, 116 1874, 135 171. II 6 1965(Act), §1973 seq., enacted Congress 1964 "attac[k] blight discrimination'' across Nation. S.Rep. 97-417, 2d Sess., p. (1982) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982 pp. 177, 180; South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 308, 86 803, 808, 15 769 (1966). Two weapons Government's formidable arsenal Act. Although these sections 687, (1994) opinion) (noting how "differ structure, application''), nevertheless ask us hold Unlike __-__, n. part), entertain little doubt litigants "routinely'' attempt avail themselves recognizing violations § inevitably make 2. Doing contradict our longstanding interpretation position. 7 5, 8 "a response common practice staying step ahead federal passing laws soon old ones struck down decided, held could, "to shift advantage time inertia perpetrators evil victim,' "freezing areas unless can shown nondiscriminatory.''' 629 (1976) (quoting H.R.Rep. 94-196, 57-58 (1970)). 9 light certain subdivisions. Such implement change first obtains administrative judicial §1973c. To bears burden proving "does effect color.'' Ibid.; City Rome 446 156, 183, 18, 100 1548, 1565, 64 119 (1980) (covered proof). focuses "freez[ing] procedures,'' impermissible "would lead retrogression position racial minorities respect effective exercise franchise.'' 141, 1364. 10 ("Under then, measured change''). example, city New Orleans' council district blacks none, "effect.'' U.S., 141-142, 1364 ("It apparent legislative enhances franchise hardly diluting §5''). Likewise, Lockhart 460 125, 103 998, 74 863 (1983), found city's charter though prior electing at-large numbered posts, instituted four year (instead years). could "have circumstances,'' 135, 1004, remained " [s]ince did increase degree discrimination [the Mexican-American population], entitled [because retrogressive],'' 134, 1004 (emphasis added). 11 means eradicating practices "minimize cancel effectiveness groups,'' 28, 205. Under broader mandate, bars subdivisions maintaining "results abridgement §1973(a). impermissibly "if, based totality circumstances, processes leading nomination State equally open participation [members class defined color] electorate participate process representatives choice.'' §1973(b). 13 plaintiff claiming that: group] large district''; group "politically cohesive''; (iii) votes bloc enable usually defeat minority's preferred candidate.'' Thornburg Gingles, 478 50-51, 106 2752, 2766-2767, 92 25 (1986); Growe Emison, 507 25, 40, 113 1075, 1084, 122 388 (1993). demonstrate circumstances supports scheme dilutive. Johnson DeGrandy, 997, 1011, 2647, 2657, 775 (1994); 44-45, 2762-2764 (listing factors assessing circumstances). concept implies-and, indeed, necessitates-the "undiluted'' measured, postulate reasonable alternative practice. 881, 2586 opinion); 950-951, 2621-2622 (Blackmun, dissenting). 14 Appellants contend upshot focus nonretrogression dilution, held, __-__. position, call question e. g., supra; Lockhart, decline do. already imposes difficult absence effect. Elkins 364 206, 218, 80 1437, 1445, 1669 (1960) (" [A]s practical matter never easy prove negative''). litigate "result'' plan-even "result''-is further serious federalism costs implicated Miller Johnson, 515 115 2475, 2493, 132 762 (1995) "federalism exacted preclearance''). 16 decision policy. prohibited observed "an ameliorative apportionment itself discriminates color Constitution.'' allegation "so discriminate[d] unconstitutional,'' cited few cases illustrate might constitutionally offensive. 142, 14, 1364, 14. Among them White Regester, 412 755, 93 2332, 37 314 (1973), sustained challenge, brought Equal Protection Clause, multimember Texas counties. argue [b]ecause Constitution generally coextensive Beer's discussion meant Brief 36-37. 17 Even assuming, arguendo, support 1976, longer valid applicable statutory constitutional changed. Since 1980, bringing Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendment, required state Mobile Bolden, 55, 62, 1490, 1497, ("Our decisions made racially neutral face Amendment motivated purpose''); 66, 1499 [O]nly purposeful Clause Amendment''); 265, 563, 450 (1977) ("Proof Clause''). 1982, clearly desire component, 178 ("Th[e 1982] amendment proof 2''). now fortiori Constitution. acknowledged fact. 39 best example Congress' enact legislation goes direct prohibitions itself''). 18 argues subsequent divergence moment because, his view, "did [in Beer] purport distinguish challenges [Voting Rights] statute.'' Post, __ Our citation White, he posits, White's standard exception nonretrogressive apportionments continued coincide standard. essence, reads creating discriminate law happens what amounted 1976. flatly contradicts plain recognized, discriminat[e] '' itself, embodied current Clause. "not remotely approach enunciated in'' cases) ceased represent understanding Constitution, standard-even later §2-no grounds Beer. 19 Appellants, next claim defer regulations states: "In instances concludes proposed, submitted free bar implementation preclearance.'' (1996). 21 normally accord construction great deference, "we reasonable.'' Presley Etowah County Comm'n, 502 491, 508, 112 820, 831, 117 51 (1992). alter amending Arkansas Best Corp. Commissioner, 485 212, 222, 7, 108 971, 977, 99 183 (1988) (placing weight express disfavor 25-year tax statute), believe suggestion contrary Senate Report amendments, 31, 189, view. With Congress, things, renewed changing depart settled demonstrably greater __, dropping footnote instead statute itself. Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 567, 2541, 2551, 101 490 ("Quite obviously, reenacting precisely same strange way (1983) (reaching Marshall's dissent, raised advanced passage Report). 22 Nor portion House unambiguously incorporation states 23 "many currently outside scope [§5] they procedure recent origin affects mechanism triggers relief, i.e., litigation [under §2] §5].'' 97-227, (1981). 24 obvious thrust pre-1965 scrutiny just reached post-1965 substantive [are] same,'' ultimate conclusion undercut statements "postenactment record,'' given form hazardous inferring earlier one.'' 361 304, 313, 326, 332, 334 (1960). give sources controlling weight. final appeal notions They assert examined ruled separate actions resources conserved. undoubtedly correct economy challenge follows proceeding. happen, actually prevailed 26 lastly equitable remedy, obtained through declaratory judgment court, discretion, §51.52(a) contend, "defense,'' decisionmaker should, preclearance. argument, equity law-i.e., §5-forbids. established "[c]ourts disregard provisions law,''' INS Pangilinan, 486 875, 2210, 2216, 882 (citing Hedges Dixon County, 150 182, 192, 71, 74-75, L.Ed. 1044 (1893)), fail. 27 Of private remains initiate proceeding believes newly section. All alone. minorities, tends "purpose.'' [t]he line [between §5] blurred allowing defendant indirectly directly,'' F.Supp., 445, "will permit "§2 evidence'' vacate Court's remand. conclusion, leave another day Kentucky Dept. Corrections Thompson, 454, 465, 109 1904, 1911, 104 506 (1989) (declining "is decision''). Reserving particularly appropriate when, case, addressed below parties' briefs appeal. 23; et. 31-33, 34-35; 42-43. STEVENS' assume nonretrogressive, discriminatory, relevance issues 29 warrants "ha[s] [or] color,'' interpreted underlying §5-"to insure voting-procedure minorities.'' Accordingly, adhered view one. 1363-1364; 1004. 30 "any tendency consequence determination Fed. Evid. 401. As Heights, 266, 563-564, official often probative why taken place since people intend natural consequences actions. Thus, enacts having likely dilute whose impact. acts act worsen voters-i.e., retrogress-than acting dilute. sure, link far direct, basic liberal one,'' Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 579, 587, 2786, 2794, 125 469 (1993), think met here. 31 fact, previously single choose more, suffice Shaw Hunt, 6, 1894, 207 (1996) [W]e alone, true chose better comported traditional districting principles, 2491-2492 (rejecting greatest possible establishes purpose); Shaw, ---------, 1903-1904 (same), all. dispositive, incorporate find unsatisfactory packaged. II, 32 illustrates, complex task requiring "sensitive circumstantial available.'' 564. guidance. There, set analyzing "whether invidious motivating factor'' government body's decisionmaking. addition serving decades, see, Reno, 630, 644, 2816, 2825, 511 (1993) context gerrymander districts); Rogers Lodge, 458 613, 618, 102 3272, 3276, 73 1012 (evaluating using test); Mobile, 70-74, 1501-1503 used, evaluate previous cases. Pleasant Grove, 479 469-470, 107 798-799 (considering history annexation neighborhood departure normal calculating alternatives); Busbee Smith, 549 494, 516-517 (D.C. 1982), summarily aff'd, 459 1166, 809, 1010 (referring Port Arthur 987, 1019, 159, 530, (same). 33 "important starting point'' "bears heavily another.''' 564 Washington Davis, 426 229, 242, 2040, 2048-2049, 48 597 (1976)). "impact'' include reasons discussed above, Other include, historical background [jurisdiction's] decision''; specific sequence events up challenged [d]epartures procedural sequence''; history, especially [any] contemporary decisionmaking body.'' 268, 565. 34 case At point, correctly stated rather contains rise inference intent.'' believed to, of, today, declared statement, endorse intent, reject. 35 contends "presumed [a dilutive] effect,'' 35, "cut directly "started' impact: "legitimate, nondiscriminatory motives' plan[?]'' 33. correct, gave indication assuming hesitate attribute rationale employed. satisfied "remedy [a] [school] system','' 449, 18. 36 *** remanded proceedings 38 ordered. concurring. 40 I continue adhere 891, 2591, judgment), join precedents. fully anticipate, problems experienced replicated exacerbated 41 trouble, imagining "retrogressive'' jurisprudence inclined so. "enhances minorities'' increasing majority-minority §5.'' (1976). studiously avoided addressing districts: decreases level influence surrounding extent "dilutes'' perhaps whole. Hays Louisiana, 936 360, 364, (W.D.La.1996) (three-judge court) plaintiffs' expert "argues convincingly empowers statewide does'' five "bleached'' reduced order create district); cf. De Grandy, 1007, 2655, occur "fragmenting several packing small minimize door''). jurisprudence, therefore, strike enough (and districts). presumably significantly all, theory measure hypothetical ideal. indeterminate "rule,'' ceases primarily prophylactic tool important war voting, becomes whereby Government, Justice, usurps legitimate judgments And empty "rule'' forces type serves supposed interests-judgments ill-equipped make. 43 solace belief force confront, sense urgency, fundamental inconsistency lies heart jurisprudence. 44 Beyond my general precedent, disagree majority's "normally'' deference. ante, __.* routes route specified Columbia, office. §1973c (generally proviso lieu providing authority preclude preclearance). Requiring adverse she articulates essentially render independence nullity. 45 Moreover, "longstanding §5,'' deference particular regulation provides: making determinations guided courts.'' §51.56 while agree standards, grounds. whom joins, judgment. Parts opinion, write separately disagreement says Ante, __. otherwise consider. Cf. (STEVENS, "purpose'' extend includes unconstitutionally strength. forbids qualification prerequisite voting'' (1) (2) "denying These last words reiterate 15th itself: "The citizens abridged indicates forbidden unconstitutionally. unconstitutional 62-63, 1497-1498, 1499, 49 prohibition rests "effects.'' assumes, "effects,'' word "effects'' embody purely test, __-__; 173, 1559-1560, (1980). here, beside point. about concerns Constitution's intended reach. simply embodying purposes context, forbid. nothing shows restrict short requires. expressly indicated harm guards against. Allen Bd. Elections, 393 544, 569, 89 817, 833-834, (1969). Consider precise legal here issue. Suppose choosing plans, B. Neither Plan principle, perspective representation, maintains quo, meeting B basically principles creates (in proportional age population). adopts Without justification, ordinary logic human experience suggest forbid 617, 3275, (Fourteenth covers claims); compare 1497-1498 (intentional illegal Amendment), Gomillion Lightfoot, 339, 346, 81 129-130, 110 (Fifteenth municipal boundaries drawn exclude blacks), 84, 1509, judgment) (Mobile plurality said dilution); Voinovich Quilter, 146, 1149, 1158, 500 ("This vote-dilution ''); 645, 2825-2826, (endorsing concurrence's approach); Then, read A, provide explanation choice, wanted (or General) approve surprising prohibits strength, doubted "that "alone'' suggests issue-evidence dilution-could claim. unlawful retrogress. Otherwise, dispositively (if retrogressive) retrogressive). Either way, much discussions Richmond 422 358, 378-379, 95 2296, 2307-2308, 245 (1975) (annexation Grove 462, 471-472, 11, 794, 800, 866 (1987) (purpose future §5); 168, 536, (a invalid "might reflect community''); 52 (1995), implicitly assumed stretched pointed Georgia (call A) B). argued showed rejection important. principles. reasoned State's adhering many inference'' 2492. If reasoning, reliance concerned Georgia's potentially run afoul 1903-1904. 53 sum, explicit assumption implicit 54 SOUTER part. 55 1965. allow her stamp law. astonishing commanded issued command. Surely command text Act.1 fair review made. provide, refuse 2.'' 56 FC21S"Sec. 5.Whenever 4(a) seek administer November 1, 1964, institute qualification, color, enters person comply procedure: Provided, enforced chief officer sixty days after submission, neither object nor entered enjoin enforcement procedure. Any heard determined judges accordance 2284 title Code [28 USCS §2284] lie Court.'' 439. 57 is, preclear "lead sufficient Today, holds kind justify assumes [never] ----. miserly holding/assumption purposes. 58 Before explaining emphasize factual predicates underlie analysis issues. First, matters worse past. (Board). 67a. Second, unnecessary discuss action, violation'' perfectly [to positions Board] African-American race] §1973(b).2 Third, "retrogressive intent,'' willing documents preventing African-Americans obtaining representation issues, Judge Kessler, accurately summarized wrote: 59 demonstrates overwhelmingly community denies candidate choice. System Parish. departures similarly motive. Three hostile representation. purported rationales flat-out untrue, glaringly facts obviously pretexts.'' 463 (D.D.C.1995). 60 maintain described But, below, concluding complied 61 remedies voting. enacted, uncontroversial provision'' "simply restated'' "already Amendment,'' 61, 1496-1497 Like invalidated like (1960), country. highly controversial imposed novel, extraordinary most flagrant. 334-335, 821-822, (1966).3 Jurisdictions Louisiana special concern Congress. resorted various strategies avoid complying orders discrimination, "Congress suppose [they] try similar maneuvers evade itself.'' 335, 822. Thus stay efforts resistant undermine Act's "rid[ding] country discrimination.'' — 315, 812 stringent aimed flagrant''). 62 lacking pervasive presumed lawful. rested party challenging situation dramatically jurisdictions. jurisdictions, institutes jurisdiction. gives go immigration statutes broad discretion waive deportation undesirable aliens, limit ibid. cabined presumptively "are conflict itself,'' 411 526, 1702, 1708, 472 (1973). Those effect''; "those instances'' 2,'' withheld.4 There speculation ""routinely,''' employ 10-year "make ---------. merely disproving submitting jurisdiction, challenged, issue, rest General.5 63 persuasive, Instead entire flawed premise change, unlawful, relies, (1976), (as provide) however confronted -which enhancing effect-the 1364.6 suggested precleared. discounts significance "unless'' clause refers According reading, dictum precludes unpersuasive. notes, cites 766, 2339-2340, "less legislators Because, statute. Rather Regester precleared.7 65 recognizes, changed respects announcement dictum. perceived applied essential element challenge. 1497 reaction placing used describe commonly known "results'' evaluating challenges. 134 (now codified §§1973(a)-(b)); 2758, (1986).8 preserved, law, identified rule changes. 1975, plans preserving violating 66 confirmed 67 "Under objectionable "itself Constitution.' 141 [96 1364]; 142 14] Fortson Dorsey [379 433, 85 498, 401 (1965),] Regester.). follow 189. 68 conveys message language. unequivocally attack §2), product §5) "affects relief.'' statement plainly Committee represents dictates §5.9 endorsing contemplated pre-clearance belittling abrogates effort, broaden protection afforded Act.'' Chisom Roemer, 501 380, 404, 111 2354, 2368, 348 (1991). 69 Despite strong warranted. wished "our interpretation'' clear. "settled contrary, regulation. 70 erroneously refused arguably proved disputed ""intent retrogress,''' For reasons, unwise reverse narrow ground. 71 imposing limitation 469-472, 798-801, (1987), instance, failed lacked 474-475, 801-802 (Powell, dissenting) (contending effect''). Furthermore, limiting Assume, disclosed long deliberate exclusion participating elections, including series quo. regress,'' "discriminatory purpose'' term understood. "contriving rules kinds sole perpetuating discrimination,'' 822, inconceivable authorize pattern discrimination. 72 point complicate takes surely follow; ultimately agrees necessary. On consideration Board, respondents bring back resolve definitively. interest orderly pellucidly clear, persuade definitively Kessler's evaluation correct. concur remands proceedings, fails above. Together 95-1508, ** syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. Department's opposed articulation determinations, purports latter. provided: violation, stipulations Parish, 130a-140a; polarized, 122a-127a; draw 76a, 82a-83a, 114a-115a. formula identifying occurred, 317-318, 812-813. Title §51.55 "Consistency requirements. (a)— Consideration general. attention being 14th, 15th, 24th amendments 1971(a) (b), 4(a), 4(f)(2), 4(f)(4), 201, 203(c), 208 safeguard abridgment race, membership group. (b)— —(1) Preclearance subsequently appropriate. receive Arizona 887 318, 321 rather, appear routinely case. 881 12-14 (D.D.C.1995); York 874 394, 398-399 (D.D.C.1994); Burton Sheheen, 793 1329, 1350 (D.S.C.1992) (holding although "obligated completely graft'' onto [i]t incongruous comport guidelines §2''). disavowed character reviewed 10, 10. left altered 133, 1003, dilution. most, allows apparently concedes interpretation,'' version tracks postenactment 1985, "based convincing Fed.Reg. 19122, 19131. oversight hearings witnesses, Assistant Civil Division, testified Oversight Hearings Subcommittee Constitutional Judiciary, Proposed Changes Regulations Governing 99th Cong., 1st 47, 149, 151-152 (1985). Following hearings, Judiciary proper course determinations.'' Act: Regulations, Ser. (Comm. Print 1986). informed concerning validity

Classification Label: 1