Legal Document

432 U.S. 491 97 Supreme Court Reporter 2411 53 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 506 Frances MORRIS and Maxine Woods, Appellants,v.L. Marion GRESSETTE et al. Number 75-1583. Argued April 18-19, 1977. Decided June 20, Syllabus Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 1965 establishes two alternative methods by which subject to can obtain federal preclearance review a change in their voting laws: (1) State may file declaratory judgment action District for Columbia subsequently implement such if that court declares has no racially discriminatory purpose or effect; (2) submit Attorney General enforce not interposed an objection within 60 days. A plan reapportioning South Carolina Senate, enacted into law on May 6, 1972, filed with Carolina, had invalidated previous consolidated challenging its constitutionality, was submitted 12 under § 5. On 23 found new constitutional, 30 notified he would interpose but defer court's determination. Thereafter, another suit brought Columbia, General's failure object plan, response order 16, 1973, make reasoned determination as constitutionality stated his view it unconstitutional still refused deference ruling Carolina. However, July 19, directed consider without regard other Court's decision, next day plan. The Appeals Circuit affirmed, holding initial reviewable required him independent merits issues. present then appellant voters seeking enjoin implementation ground obtained favorable from Columbia. three-judge dismissed complaint, collateral-estoppel doctrine did preclude considering State's contention that, notwithstanding Appeals' decision action, requirements were satisfied when failed days after submission him, Administrative Procedure authorize judicial therefore timely left free Held: nunc pro tunc, is invalid, Pp. 499-507. (a) nature remedy, been characterized "unusual" "severe" procedure, strongly suggests Congress intend actions provision be review. Unlike first method obtaining judgment, does condition changes laws second compliance affirmative statement effect, but, contrary, this measured solely absence, whatever reason, part. 501-503. (b) In light potential severity statutory language, legislative history, clear intended provide covered jurisdictions expeditious providing alternative. Since unavoidably extend period specified statute, necessarily precluded. 504-505. (c) Where character enactment detected upon General, challenged traditional constitutional litigation, cannot questioned exercise discretion 5, period. Pp.505-507. 425 F.Supp. 331, affirmed. Randall T. Bell, S. C., appellees. Judge Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D. appellants. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 issue case concerns scope jurisdiction Act. 2 * events leading up litigation date back November 11, 1971, 932 Senate.1 promptly pursuant 79 Statutes-at-Large 439, amended, 42 Code KF62 1973c (1970 ed., Supp. V).2 That section forbids any "any qualification prerequisite voting, standard, practice, procedure respect voting" (i) proposed "does have will effect denying abridging right vote account race color," (ii) submitting receiving days.3 While review, several suits violative Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments enforcement until cases convened. 3 March 932.4 Although aware standing alone, justified injunction against proceeded address validity reapportionment plan.5 rejected Amendment claim lack evidence motivated, held violated due malapportionment. retained allowed enact acceptable substitute Twiggs versus West, Civ. 71-1106 (S.C. Apr. 7, 1972). 4 senate 1205.6 This Court, constitutional.7 By letter dated 30, because felt "constrained . Court" supra.8 App. 48. Thus, 1205 declared declined Act.9 Not content named plaintiffs commenced August 10, they ordered "a accordance responsibility." Harper Kleindienst, 362 742, 746 (1973). order, Amendment, reaffirmed refusal constrained West. Brief Appellants 4a. "unable conclude rights race." 52. 6 appeal, It circumstances case,10 requires Levi, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 520 Federal Reporter, 2nd (1975). 7 Armed belated class See Allen Board Elections, 393 544, 557-563, 89 817, 827-830, 22 (1969). plaintiffs, appellants here, sought convened complaint. 331 (1976). collateral estoppel Carolina's supra, 1205.11 also ruled these considerations, concluded applicable 60-day 8 We noted probable determine reviewability 429 997, 522, 50 607 For reasons below, we affirm. II 9 ultimate Senate. implemented only "has objection" meaning Act.12 conceded entered F.Supp., at 333. But insist tunc effective thus bars depends whether object.13 10 stipulates provisions authorizing apply "except extent statutes review; agency committed law." 701(a).14 now well settled "judicial final aggrieved person cut off unless there persuasive reason believe Congress." Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1511, 18 681 (1967).15 reviewing must "Congress express implied terms precluded entirely administrative discretion." Barlow Collins, 397 159, 165, 90 832, 837, 25 192 (1970). 11 As expressly precludes necessary "whether nonreviewability fairly inferred." U.S., 166, S.Ct., 837. Association Data Processing Service Organizations Camp, 150, 157, 827, 831, 184 (1970); switchmen's Union National Mediation Board, 320 297, 64 95, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). inquiry role played "the context entire scheme." 141, 1511. 556, (1969), delay validly state legislation authorities opportunity conforms Constitution Katzenbach, 383 301, 334, 86 803, 821, 15 769 (1966). comply severe requirement First, color." V). Second, sixty submission." Ibid. 13 According latter once complete received office unlike conditioned effect.16 To part General.17 And recognized "(o)nce successfully complied approval requirements, private parties attacking constitutionality; further remedy provided 5." 549-550, 823. 14 history bearing directly materials do indicate desire speedy States. original bill means Hearings S.1564 before Senate Committee Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) (hereafter Hearings). Justified arose time pursue unduly enacted, nondiscriminatory legislation. Cognizant problem, Katzenbach suggested "could improved applying those takes exception given time." 237. changed incorporate suggestion.18 think actions. congressional intent plain: extraordinary postponing come end based submission.19 bar subsequent challenges legislation, "no dragging out" beyond statute. Switchmen's 305, 99. period, precluded.20 16 Our conclusions are reinforced fact conclusive legislation.21 statute provides neither "an indication made, nor shall enforcement" newly regulation. Cf. Dunlop Bachowski, 421 560, 569-570, 95 1851, 1858-1859, 44 377 true perceived inadequacy prompted pass 556 n. 21, 827; 309, 808. follow 5.22 substantially reduces likelihood escape detection authorities.23 litigation. period.24 III 17 reasons, hold invalid.25 Affirmed. 19 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 20 holds today Act, V), court. Under ruling, matters fails misunderstands legal duty, case; loses submission; seeks subvert Indeed, grants unreviewable future bargain acquiescence return electoral votes.1 & Donald, Civil War Reconstruction 678-701 (2d ed. 1961) (settlement election 1876). 21 Common sense proclaims error result. simply implausible Congress, devoted unusual attention recognition stringency importance, see 308-309, 808-809, (1966), allow Act's primary mechanism vitiated whim General. Legal analysis supports conclusion thing. today, majority puts aside both common analysis, relying instead fiat. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent. Atlantic agree dispositive all enter 5.2 And, notes, indeed "well 'judicial Congress.' " Ante, 501, quoting (1967). If applied rather than merely acknowledged below reversed. 24 explicitly absence places appellees heavy burden overcoming strong presumption mean prohibit (the General's) decision(s)." 567, 1857, normal "strong" strengthened prohibition, contained 4(b) 1973b(b), determinations Act.3 wrote same officer's certainly said so. makes effort explain why silence should treated equivalent 4. nothing precluding also, admits, 503. offers support disregarded inference foreclosed serve assertedly limiting during prevented implementing purportedly drawn 'the scheme.' fact, however, completely ignores General; majority's version mailing Department wait laws, impose duties limit is, according key aspect concerned. 26 previously taken much different Just four years ago, Georgia States, 411 526, 93 1702, 36 472 (1973), doing so, 27 "it important focus scheme portion essentially freezes effect. 'merely gives rapid rendering enforceable.' (544,) 549, (817) 823, 1." 538, 1709 (emphasis added). 28 Because meant ameliorate "essential" upheld regulations deferred beginning created certain criteria. "(t)he difficult complex one," 540, 1710 added), could await information, "his plausible inadequate incomplete it."4 placement proof approval, 29 "(a)ny less stringent standard might rendered formal dead making available far smoother path clearance." Id., 1709. contrast today's function proviso established clearance action. 31 description very limited respond regulation approved imposes obligation Regulations 51.19 (1976).5 Moreover, specifies take: 32 "If so notify authority. determines conflicting, unable resolve conflict shall, consistent above-described (on State) authority." 33 adopted regulation, clearly proscribed forbidden binding Nixon, 418 683, 695-696, 94 3090, 3101-3102, 41 1039 (1974); Vitarelli Seaton, 359 535, 968, 1012 (1959); Dulles, 354 363, 77 1152, 1403 (1957); ex rel. Accardi Shaughnessy, 347 260, 74 499, 98 (1954). 34 duty disapprove them meet standards undisputed determination.6 was, therefore, He perform duty,7 deferring concedes entered.8 35 insulated designed defaults, 706(1),9 one only: contains deadline act. existence performance "persuasive reason" reviewed unique among our decisions.10 trust remain unique. Nothing reviewed.11 illogic argument transmogrifies impenetrable shield inaction. B inconsistent flatly case. determined dissenters objected it,12 unanimously Government's propriety "outside permissible inquiry." O.T.1972, 72-75, Page 38. 37 glaring contradiction between today. overrule allows find bizarre rule. am sure others, especially members whose supposedly following, equally baffled. 38 Perhaps out justifiable embarrassment, never mentions ruling. easy describe: upholds system choosing black senators, despite 25% population black.14 leader movement deprive former slaves federally guaranteed vote, 310-311, 809, 9, 333-334, 821-822, last successful movement. take more muster convince me result "Congress' firm intention rid country racial discrimination voting." 315, 812. Certainly identify 'clear convincing evidence,' compelled passed intention. 39 quite spell hope someday representative citizenry Decennial Census 1980 substantial reapportionment, place, conscientious, devices strict 531, 1706. Beer 130, 96 1357, 47 629 highly contingent possibility promise realized some 110 ratified, apparently sufficient eyes majority. me, put what "nearly century widespread resistance Amendment." 337, 40 BLACKMUN, (1975), assessment case, ante, 497-498. multimember districts, each candidate run single, numbered post, elections decided vote. 325-326, 53, 57-58 set forth pertinent part: "Whenever political subdivision prohibitions 1973b(a) title made sentence 1973b(b) seek administer force 1, 1964, institute qualification, prerequisite, color, contravention guarantees 1973b(f)(2) title, enters denied procedure: Provided, enforced proceeding chief officer appropriate official submission, good cause shown, facilitate expedited affirmatively indicated made. Neither object, procedure. event indicates sixty-day following receipt reserve reexamine additional information comes remainder otherwise require section. Any heard three judges 2284 Title appeal lie Court." adopts (1976); (1973); 319-320, 813-814; 548-550, 822-823; Hadnott Amos, 394 358, 366, 1101, 1105, 336 (1969); Perkins Matthews, 400 379, 380-382, 91 431, 433-434, 476 (1971); 529, 1705; City Richmond 422 361-362, 2296, 2299-2300, 45 245 (1975); 131-133, 1359-1360; Jewish Williamsburgh Carey, 430 144, 147-148, 996, 1000-1001, 51 229 (1977) (plurality opinion). since considered January 1972. 539-541, 1710-1711; infra. combination multi-member posts, (run-off) occasion abridgment minority Carolina." 27. rule claims Act: "Prior arguments, approve 1965. defendants stated, argument, contest which, law, proper forum accordingly plaintiff McCollum, confine consideration invalidity Amendments, admittedly properly Jurisdictional Statement 30a. reapportioned senatorial districts. reapportionments Plan guidelines calling primaries. U.S.App.D.C., 326, F.2d, 58. extended numbered-post existing districts House Representatives, chamber Assembly. summarily affirmed Powell 413 901, 3049, 1020 Connor Waller, 656, 2003, 486 legislature own authority course 5's provisions. (Such distinguished "reapportionment order," required. East Carroll Parish School Marshall, 424 636, 638 n.6, 1083, 1085, 296 (1976).) abandoned earlier policy district decisions constitutionality. Amicus Curiae 16. 1205, 1204, "all elective districts" State. 1204 posts Representatives. supra. West relating House. stressed contended improperly relinquished responsibility independently evaluate ." "not findings issues discharged proving effect," unnecessary decide reviewable. 335, 67. 24, pressed 17-20. point argued court-ordered outside supra; n.8, applicable. n.1; Appellees 14, 7. 8. suggest reach single-judge 742 (D.C.1973), issued interlocutory declaring expired extending acted Relying Mine Workers, 330 258, 289-295, 67 677, 884 (1947), contend valid regardless preserving status quo pending jurisdiction. Workers involved power party contempt disobedience party. Appellants' reliance misplaced, restraining 1205. Here Kleindienst eventually turns validate 1973. With exceptions relevant defines "each Government 701(b)(1). Accord, Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 401 402, 410, 814, 820, 136 Tooahnippah Hickel, 598, 606, 1316, 1321, 600 Organizations, Incorporated 156-157, 831-832, Nor read interposition finding prohibited Compare 540-541, 1710-1711, id., 544-545, 1712-1713 (WHITE, J., dissenting), 545, 1713 (POWELL, dissenting). prior described scheme. See, e. g., 362, 2299 (change "such either act him"); 1705 "submitting days"). Compliance added bill, debates discussed addition. S.Rep.No.162, (1965); H.R.Conf.Rep.No.711, (1965). summarized 333, 65. promulgated commence receives satisfying enumerated requirements. 51.3(b)-(d) These one, argue adequate information." 1710. deny suspend tendered leave choice submissions, "would add acrimony administration 541, 1711. submission. factors relied inapplicable itself "add acrimony" statutorily prescribed "rapid enforceable." 823; MARSHALL'S dissent voices concern over "unique(ness)" decision. Post, 514, 10. every preclusion unique; scheme," (1967), differs cited dissent, illustrates point. confront anything analogous here. 504. Secretary Labor exclusive post-election remedy. instant hand, infra, page. Similarly, After retains option Petersburg 410 962, 1441, 698 aff'g 1021 (D.C.1972). section, 509-510, 3, Briscoe 404, 2428, formulate mechanical construction: open courts inquire sections Application construction prevent giving factor intent, Here, harsh sufficiently indications override contrary MARSHALL's opens "floodgates" argument: sometime bargains votes. 508, 1. Congress' 22, like operates assumption faithfully responsibilities. determining inferred scheme, place weight prospect trade votes relinquishes 30-31. text, note, "relinquished" record erroneous, 8, nonetheless exercised disposition advanced single judge questions arising 560-563, 828-830. "QUESTION: thought your position even General) said, we're interposing voted Republican election, wouldn't "(Counsel): Isn't effect? objection, confident coming ourselves, basis. No, didn't object; says, election. Now that? Would reviewable? be; isn't correct? fall kind being Exactly. don't want go say Well, go, goes far, understand it; shocking." Tr. Oral Arg. 52-53. addition barred "adjudicatory" objecting challenge object. bringing prevents attaining persons "adversely affected aggrieved," 702, 337-339 (D.S.C.1976). holdings need agreed 704. rejects holdings, note my view, patently erroneous. explicit decisive 439. says obviously holding, course, granted license "implausible" failing matter how be. Curiously, quoted text reads follows: "Section function. Therefore, base material presented authority, individuals groups, results investigation conducted Justice." majority-runoff requirement. 495, objectionable features defer" (S.C., 1972), aspects establish violation motivated. 496-497. nevertheless maintained belief shown simultaneous extension 47. himself 4a (memorandum reiterating supra ); (letter Assistant indicating behalf ). halfheartedly argues relinquish implementation. 507 24. clear, views imposed regulations, met criteria 495-496. Supervisors, 642, 833, 106 (1977); "The "(1) compel unlawfully withheld unreasonably delayed." Labor's union 482. 482, deadline. appears defeat speedier way gain permission laws. Of expiration requiring re-examine illustrates, allowing suspension completed. My Brother WHITE protested: "Surely, objections too busy give submissions them, governors persuasion. Neither, think, anticipate discharge stating persuaded procedures realistic reasonable assume expected careful good-faith and, deemed necessary, mind did, thereto." 543, 1712 invalid correction. cf. 505 bad slip interception most 506-507. keep closed blacks, demonstrates fatuousness quantitative argument. restructured enforceable restraint

Classification Label: 1