Legal Document

454 U.S. 393 102 Supreme Court Reporter 715 70 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 576 Larry BLANDING, et al., Appellants,v.E. M. DuBOSE, al. Number 81-325. Jan. 11, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants, citizens of Sumter County, S.C., have taken an appeal from a summary judgment entered against them on February 17, 1981, by the District for South Carolina. The three-judge concluded that County in June 1979 had made preclearance submission under § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965, 79 Statutes-at-Large 439, as amended, 42 Code KF62 1973c, when it wrote Attorney General informing him referendum approved at-large Council elections. Because failed to object within 60 days claimed submission, permitted proceed with elections its Council. We hold county's letter was reconsideration request, not and reverse. 2 * Section Act1 provides covered political subdivision enacts voting procedure different effect November 1, 1964, must either seek declaratory Columbia approving or submit preclearance. If is submitted he does interpose objection days, may be enforced. 3 On governed Carolina Assembly delegation acting through Board Supervisors. In 1967, enacted local bill established new form government namely, seven-member Commission elected at large. See 1967 S.C.Acts, 371. Although this change required Act, no steps were obtain held 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974. 4 1975, passed, Governor approved, State's Home Rule 1975 283, codified S.C.Code 4-9-10 seq. (1976 Supp.1980). county select choose between single-member district 4-9-10. specifically provided if did referendum, would assigned, effective July 1976, council-administrator council members at-large. 4-9-10(b). General2 such, but indicated outcomes referenda assignments forms subject 6 chose referendum. Accordingly, assigned passed resolution ordinance adopting method election. 7 August 13, Administrator Ordinance December 3, after having obtained necessary additional information, see 28 Federal Regulations 51.18 (1980), timely election He interposed government. 8 requested reconsider his elections, 51.21(b), continued correspond during 1977 1978. early 1978, asked whether withdraw endorsed April year, declined advised favorable result, itself, cause mind. 9 A scheduled After refused objection, private parties brought separate federal suits prevent system. two consolidated. single judge issued temporary restraining order, 21, permanently enjoined until requirements fulfilled. 10 went ahead which voters they preferred districts. majority method. already being system, enact any adopt results 11 Then came critical exchange correspondence. 4, 1979, received letter, dated advising results. expressed doubt method, 51.2(c) request earlier 51.21.3 Subsequently, 23, conference Washington, D. C., officials representatives Department Justice. 51.23. Fifteen later, 51.24,4 7, General, referring "request reconsideration," Justice yet completed review. September 27, second time objection. 51.25.5 12 Thereafter, defendant-appellees moved judgment. They contended reconsideration. 5, appellees noted, requires submission. asserted that, since free 13 again convened. It agreed appellees. 509 F.Supp. 1334 (1981). Referring court observed 1978 electing 1964. according Court, Rejecting General's argument 1976 declared: "This will party [Attorney General's] effort excuse failure act mislabeling 'request reconsideration.' "6 F.Supp., 1336. II 14 conclude mislabeled letter. ruled because selecting But been merely pre-existing method—the very more than endorse previously outstanding amount 15 Indeed, fell squarely definition request. applicable regulation upon submitting authority "to present further substantiating explanatory information available authority." 51.21(b) (1980). constituted concerning consider. thus nothing light 16 put forward several reasons why, view, None persuades us. First, pointed out one regulations do limit Second, relied however, follows laudable practice accepting requests even though are untimely, considering possibly important original also 51.25 (permitting own motion). event, mere fact untimely convert into Third, cited proposition based available. That requirement poses obstacle outcome authorities. And, just become so simply repetitive. 17 Not only decision mischaracterize has undesirable Under court's ruling, could recommence 60-day period readopting contested procedure. addition, forced redundant objections same laws. For these also, we refuse accept Court's interpretation 5. 18 Finally, frequently stated courts should grant deference given statutes charged their administration. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit company versus Milhollin, 444 555, 100 790, 63 22 (1980); Sheffield Comm'rs, 435 110, 131, 98 965, 979, 55 148 (1978); Udall Tallman, 380 16, 85 792, 801, 616 (1965). case, employed reasonable definitions treated latter category. followed sensible course.7 19 Reversed. 20 THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs 21 REHNQUIST, whom POWELL joins, concurring. per curiam correctly concludes reconsideration, Therefore, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions concur curiam's reasoning conclusion. reluctantly, record case illustrates what view unreasonably burdensome unrealistic control Government routinely exercises over state governments Act. 23 recounts 5-year approval Assistant Attorneys adopted Assembly. This included occasional correspondence high-level attorneys Civil Division Justice, and, apparently, frequent contact low-level who about plans, statistics, histories, names, places, related facts. such communications unusual dealings today's bureaucracy, portrays particularly frustrating please distant veto power decisions officials. example, October 31, 1977, explains legal inability law comply various "suggestions" concludes: 24 leaves us dilemma. [County] doesn't wish position seeming pay attention your suggestion properly changed; seem disregarding suggestions. other hand, County's inadequate manner you suggesting. . Perhaps can suggest something help resolve our difficulties disturbed, perplexed, confounded." Record, Defendants' Exhibit 20, Pages 2-3, attached Motion Summary Judgment, filed 25, 1980. 25 Today's decision, course, reopen dispute place mercy Department. There seems inherently unsatisfactory system places discretionary hands few unelected wholly detached realities locality preferences electorate. Nonetheless, Congress established, therefore reads pertinent part follows: "Whenever State respect prohibitions set forth section 1973b(a) title determinations first sentence 1973b(b) shall administer qualification prerequisite voting, standard, practice, force institute action qualification, prerequisite, purpose denying abridging right vote account race color, unless enters person denied procedure: Provided, enforced without proceeding chief officer appropriate official sixty Any heard determined three judges accordance provisions 2284 lie Court." acted Division. states: "We uncertain termed 'new submission,' 'request' submission." Page Judgment 51.24 reads: "An withdrawn produce satisfies racially discriminatory effect. notify (provided least following decide) continue giving decision. copy notification sent commented notice thereon." opinion, (1981), omitted mention motion take 27. respect, clearly erroneous. Once found actions untimely. hardly said response note conference, once more, Before there accompanied multipage document supplying, inter alia, 51.10 presented conference. might §§ 51.3(b) 51.18(a). City Rome States, 446 156, 171, 1548, 1559, 64 119 need address issue.

Classification Label: 1