Legal Document

452 U.S. 130 101 Supreme Court Reporter 2224 68 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 724 W. C. McDANIEL et al., Petitioners,v.Jose SANCHEZ al. Number 80-180. Argued March 2, 1981. Decided June 1, Syllabus After holding that the apportionment plan for precincts from which county commissioners were elected to serve on Commissioners Kleberg County, Tex., was unconstitutional because of substantial population variances in precincts, District directed officials submit a proposed reapportionment court. The then employed an expert prepare new and subsequently adopted his submitted it Court. court approved authorized conduct 1980 primary general elections under it, rejecting respondents' contention § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965 (Act) required county, jurisdiction covered by Act, obtain preclearance either Attorney General or Columbia before could become effective. Appeals vacated Court's order, "[a] local legislative body does not lose its status as rather than court-ordered merely is product litigation conducted federal forum," preclearance. Held : Congress intended require compliance with statutory procedures circumstances this case. Whenever submits proposal reflecting policy choices representatives people—no matter what constraints have limited available them—the requirement applicable. Pp. 137-153. (a) statement East Carroll Parish School Board versus Marshall, 424 636, 96 1083, 47 296—which held court-adopted suggested there involved judicial purposes substantive review—that also dictum control 139-146. (b) language unambiguously answer question, but history 1975 amendments shows protections are be even when redistricting governmental ordered remedy constitutional violation has been established pending litigation. 146-153. 615 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1023, affirmed. Richard Atlantic Hall, Corpus Christi, petitioners. Robert Judge Parmley, Alice, respondents. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae, special leave Justice STEVENS delivered opinion 1 We granted certiorari decide whether 1965, amended,1 applies jurisdiction2 response determination existing electoral districts unconstitutional. Relying 296 (per curiam), case thus excepted requirements 5. Wise Lipscomb, 437 535, 98 2493, 57 411, Fifth Circuit reversed; had prepared body, within coverage persuaded Accordingly, we affirm judgment Appeals. 2 rural Texas. Under Texas law, Court, composed four presided over judge, govern County. divided periodically into commissioners' each elects resident position commissioner. judge at large. 4-year terms.3 3 In January 1978, Mexican-American residents County brought class action against various alleging denied individual larger vote equal weight, unconstitutionally diluted voting strength county's population.4 trial,5 rejected plaintiffs' claim power Mexican-Americans class, voters representation disparity number precinct.6 therefore six weeks, scheduled hearing validity weeks thereafter.7 4 Pursuant undertook task devising plan. Dr. Nash, statistician Dean College Business & I. University, plan, instructing him define "on one-person/one-vote basis."8 With one insignificant modification, the9Commissioners officially Nash would Respondents objected They challenged data used Dean, they claimed Mexican-Americans, contended effective.10 evidentiary hearing, both factual contentions, law did entered order approving authorizing it. See App. Pet. Certiorari A-21 A-23. 6 Without expressing any respect constitutionality per curiam opinion. 1023 (1980). Reasoning id., 1024, thereafter petitioners' application stay filing consideration petition writ certiorari. On August 14, 1980, however, POWELL, capacity Justice, recalling mandate staying disposition 448 1318, 7, 65 1142. question presented important our prior opinions free ambiguity. 449 898, 265, 66 127.11 7 contend apply "(a) district court, third party expert, (c) submission (d) considered trial court-ordered, (e) put effect only after do so court."12 8 first consider significance distinction between plans identified cases. review decisions respectively placed reliance. Finally, examine statute history. 9 * political subdivisions Act. Briscoe Bell, 432 404, 97 2428, 53 439.13 Section applicable whenever "shall enact seek administer qualification prerequisite voting, standard, practice, procedure different force November 1972. . ." 42 Code KF62 1973c. A "standard, voting" meaning 5, Georgia States, 411 526, 531-535, 93 1702, 1708, 36 472, undisputed jurisdiction. What dispute "enact administer" violation. If apply, must precleared may effective.14 such proceeding, sufficient demonstrate constitutional; burden demonstrating districting changes motivated discriminatory purpose will adverse impact minority voters. e. g., City Rome 446 156, 172-173, 100 1548, 1559-1560, 64 119. Two polar propositions perfectly clear. First, requires without direction approval. supra. Second, Act's Connor Johnson, 402 690, 91 1760, 29 268 ).15 Petitioners while respondents argue behalf body. 10 cases arising recognized differences plans. Because "reapportionment primarily duty responsibility State through legislature other court," Chapman Meier, 420 27, 95 751, 766, tolerated somewhat greater flexibility fashioning remedies one-person, one-vote rule prepares own remedial decree. Thus, "unless persuasive justifications, state avoid use multimember districts, and, well, ordinarily achieve goal equality little more de minimis variation." Id., 26-27, S.Ct., 765-766 (footnote omitted).16 contrast, bodies employ result disparities permitted Finch, 431 407, 414-415, 1828, 1833-1834, 52 465. Cf. Mahan Howell, 410 315, 979, 35 320. 11 case, concerned should concerning acceptability Nonetheless, draw significant guidance applicability issue. II 12 neither respective parties now place their reliance predicate decision those cases, error approve inclusion review. 13 plaintiff among parish's wards right cast effective school board police jury, governing parish. found As remedy, provided at-large election members jury board. Following 1970 census, revised resubmitted calling elections, again panel affirmed decision,17 sitting en banc reversed ground arrangement unconstitutional.18 14 When reviewed concluded improper base view fact violated frequently reaffirmed "rule courts supplant concededly invalid legislation, single-member preferred absent unusual circumstances." 639, 1085. 15 Although issue raised parties, stated Neither argued 5's However, that, jurisdiction, required. argument footnote: 16 "[C]ourt-ordered resulting equitable adversary proceedings controlled Had reapportioned itself authority, clearance clearly Waller, 421 656 [95 2003, 44 486] (1975). submitting purport reapportion accordance 1968 enabling legislation juries boards adopt elections. 56. Moreover, since Louisiana opposed authority itself. Since scheme pursuant apply. 691 [91 1761, 268] (1971)." U.S., 638-639, n. 6, 1085, 6. 17 rely heavily upon footnote. While understandable, footnote dispositive discussion unnecessary It is, therefore, controlling directly issue.19 subsequent v Limpscomb, indicates least extent addressed narrowly particular facts. 18 system Dallas Council black citizens. gave opportunity response, passed resolution stating Council's intention pass ordinance providing eight council three remaining city " 'to determine plan' "a valid Act." 538-539, 2496. reversed, relying hold evaluate standards deciding exceptional justified judicially imposed 551 1043 (CA5 1977). 19 committed failing usual presumption announcing WHITE, joined STEWART, answered "appropriate, practicable, afford reasonable meet adopting substitute measure devise plan." 540, 2497. WHITE distinguished purported themselves deed, invalidated Act.20 Council, acted inherent replace Wise. 545-546, 2500. 20 POWELL's separate concurring part judgment, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST. POWELL agreed WHITE's conclusion districts. Burns Richardson, 384 73, 86 1286, 376, disagreed suggestion if law. 548, 2501.21 view, body's irrelevant He explained critical difference court-imposed former reflected people, whereas latter represented directive court.22 Deference lacked plan.23 21 dissent, MARSHALL, BRENNAN STEVENS, expressed indistinguishable correctly applied 550-554, 2502-2504. majority proper reach subject Court.24 22 clear Wise, like Carroll, issue, references nevertheless instructive. pointing out "the distinctive impact" observed normal 541-542, 2497-2498, stated: 23 "Plans provision, subdivision 'enact administer' 'different' obtaining declaratory change 'does denying abridging account race color' affording appropriate object thereto. enacted State, including purportedly invalidation 'effective law,' 412 [97 1832]; (1975), until received Neither, circumstances, obtained, address measure. supra; supra." 542, 2498 omitted). 24 nor decided precise presented. surely foreshadowed announce today. For indicate us devised character addition, III 25 This answers Solicitor General, contends "seek[s] practice plausible obviously correct reading language. contrary no given legal incorporation Arguably, enters decree, precleared, seeConnor 268, once decree too late qualify find ambiguity make turn guidance. 26 1975, ultimately attention census.25 Report S. 1279, bill extended life beyond Senate Committee Judiciary future need Act" redrafting lines violations created opportunities disenfranchise voters.26 "By removed 1985, 1279 guarantee protection rights during years post-census redistrictings take place."27 27 crystal point: 28 "Thus, example, where holds appointment predates date typical direct present else choose situation, defer of—or selection among—any time these Only proceed fourteenth fifteenth amendment questions raised. "The exception exigent actually fashions instead litigant. 'court decree' 690 (1971). Even adopts patterned court's required, Furthermore, follow standards, administrative precedents developed cases." Report, 18-19.28 30 consistent basic well-settled broad construction. See, Dougherty Education White, 439 32, 38, 99 368, 372, 58 269; Sheffield Commissioners, 435 110, 122-123, 965, 974-975, 55 148; Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 387, 431, 436, 476. designed forestall danger modify practices impair access process.29 interest preventing jurisdictions making adversely affect same community's perception desirability responding social patterns.30 31 true, course, protected presiding litigation, sound reasons support Committee's followed this.31 contemplated reflect congressional choice favor specialized review—either Columbia. large necessarily undergo process, centralized enhances likelihood recurring problems resolved expeditious way.32 awaiting challenging refusal redistrict census completed, might unintended encouraging delay needed boundaries. evenhanded all furthered this. 32 dependent showing defective way. Supervisors Warren 429 642, 833, 51 106 curiam); Morris Gressette, 491, 2411, 506. prophylactic achieved automatically requiring "review implementation jurisdictions." (emphasis supplied).33 material independent expert. His expertise facilitate satisfactory completion obviate just requirement, method formulating irrelevant. 33 case.34 pointed essential characteristic exercise judgment. satisfied alter characteristic. specific uniform rule. 34 construe mandate, them applicable.35 was, act ordered. 37 concurring. 38 today (1978), N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join sustained reconsideration, adhere previously expressed. 193, 1570, 1119 (1980) (POWELL, J., dissenting); Bd. Ed. 48, 377, 269 (1978) 545, 1713, 472 (1973) dissenting). Sheffield, 141, 984, 148 (STEVENS, Allen Elections, 393 544, 586, n.4, 89 817, 842, (1969) (HARLAN, concurringin dissenting part); South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 358, 803, 769 (1966) (BLACK, dissenting).* 39 whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 40 n.6, 296, expressly deliberate demonstrated presence questioning 640, 1085 (concurring opinion). believe said controls respectfully dissent. 79 Statutes-at-Large 437, amended 1970, 84 314, 400. relevant part, set forth 1973c, provides: "[W]henever prohibitions section 1973b(a) title based determinations made sentence 1973b(b) shall 1972, institute qualification, prerequisite, color, contravention guarantees 1973b(f)(2) title, unless person failure comply procedure: Provided, That enforced proceeding chief officer official interposed objection sixty days submission, good cause shown, expedited approval affirmatively indicated made." identifies prohibitions. One determinants "test device" registration voting. 1973b(b), (c). enlarged changing definition protect non-English-speaking citizens who constitute 5% age "In addition term subsection section, 'test device' mean notices, forms, instructions, assistance, materials information relating ballots, English language, Director Census determines five centum residing single minority." 401-402, 1973b(f)(3). amendment, became jurisdictions. 439. generally Tex.Const., Article 18; Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., 2351 (Vernon 1971). Elections staggered two every years. certified classes plaintiffs: (1) registered weight due malapportionment precincts; (2) whose A-2, A-4. February refused grant plaintiffs preliminary relief enjoining May 1978 uncertainty statistical establish malapportionment. election, injunction remanded reconsideration light Lister 566 490 (5 Cir. 1978), "had basis Census." 492. Upon remand, proceeded 33,166 residents. precinct boundaries drawn perfect equality, 8,291 fact, largest contained 9,928 smallest 6,702. maximum deviation 38.9%. A-5. 1968, following census. ordering defendants noted: initial constitutionally permissible Court." A-19. he extensive instructions preparation Nash's testimony reveals plan's details left largely discretion: "Q. you receive notification McDaniel reference drafting plan? "A. wanted broken down input how it." 25. ask geographical boundaries, previous maintenance ethnic balance precincts. 26. influenced considerations; attempted much possible. 29-30. proposal, asked redraw boundary locate courthouse Precinct Four. block affected change, see 28, noted granting stay: "It fair say Lipscomb fall considerably short initially difficult helpful, provide guidance." 1322, 9. I; Brief II. construing described detail procedures. 1; 769; 472; summarily formulated 5: "A 691, 1761. Black added: "Needless completely agree strange indeed 439, 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. V), actions stayed Columbia." 695, 1763. Legislature North Dakota, Zimmer McKeithen, 467 1381 1972). 485 1297 1973) (en banc). Appeals, appellants never F.2d, 1301-1302, 7. dictum: "I discussed, ante [424 U.S.,] [96 6.] observes 'not petitioners, respondent file cross-petition.' scope matter, undertake express discusses way dicta 6." To inconsistent today, disavowed. why Appeals: "[W]e emphasized [in ] furthermore, legally powers disapproved 1965. 638 637 1084 2. mere equivalent performed processes community question." Burns, striking Hawaii's scheme, interim Hawaii 80-81, 1290-1291. complied unacceptable. appeal, treated despite amendment. plain crucial factor legislature's power: point exercised Th[e] deference judgments remains if, examination suggests lacks itself." 2501. reaching conclusion, read "as turning peculiar facts": "Because brief cite employing impermissible Negro meant unlawful effects. tainted respect, legitimacy afforded balances indulged. implies anything further about principle control." 549, 2502. At outset opinion, MARSHALL summarized position: majority's below. analysis past Part Mr. cannot agree, distinguishable (1976). conclude here evaluated common plans." 550, 2498. extension relevance. 46, 269. importance provisions propose amend remedies, preclearance, operative additional ten did, year periods time, concludes imperative insure Decennial Census. "Approximately one-third Department's objections state, levels. (S. Hearings 539-540, 581-582). experience ought ignored terms assessing ironic 'one man-one vote' ruling [Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 1362, 506 (1964)] disfranchise Having redraft ruling, always care void discriminating process. By place." S.Rep. 94-295, Pages 17-18 (1975) omitted) (Senate Report). 18. went properly Gaillard Young, 74-1265 (SC 1975). Gaillard, embodied final 19. petitioners conceded "involved facts identical case." 1. unconstitutional, "redistricting reapportioning effort pre-empt." 539, 2496 (opinion J.) 766. Our area State's enjoin give acceptable replacement undertaking reapportionment. Reynolds 585-586, 1394, 506; Maryland Tawes, 656, 676, 1429, 1440, 595; Davis Mann, 678, 693, 1441, 1449, 609; Ely Klahr, 403 108, 114, 1803, 1807, 352. Gaffney Cummings, 735, 749, 2321, 2329, 298. "[J]udicial becomes fails according requisites timely fashion having adequate so." Reynolds, supra, 1394; 85, 1293. court; 486 curiam). illustrates complies filed enjoined implementing unable General's plans, approval, finding principle. 643-644, 834. implemented, limiting inquiry suit 1976, 7,470 Department 5; 62 submissions. Subcommittee Civil Constitutional Rights, House Judiciary, GAO 95th Cong., Sess., 35-36 (statement Drew Days III, Assistant Division). H.R.Rep. 94-196, 8-11 (1975); 91-397, 6-8 (1969). appear contend, July term. January. Tex.Elec.Code Ann., 2.04(1) Supp.1980). Election subunits voter registers votes. resulted splitting several altered coverage, resolve rate, possesses itself; challenge timing adoption interposition encourage dilatory tactics incumbents continue represent malapportioned courts, ample character. "objection [it] conflict[s] most principles Constitution." 833. "Section some laws being compelled beg authorities policies, distorts structure government render Constitution almost meaningless. premises founded Government certain others, reserved respectively, people.' Certainly limit reserve anything, constitutions sending hundreds miles away them." 358-359, 833-834. freely safeguarded vigilantly. denies impairs right, traditional forum redress.

Classification Label: 1