## Facts

- Black registered voters in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, challenged the method of electing justices to the Louisiana Supreme Court from the First Supreme Court District.
- The district elected two justices at-large from a four-parish, multi-member district combining majority-Black Orleans Parish with three majority-white parishes.
- Plaintiffs alleged the at-large, multi-member structure diluted Black voting strength in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982.
- The United States intervened in support of the plaintiff class.
- The district court ruled against plaintiffs on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, applies to state judicial elections.
2. Whether § 2(b)’s reference to minority voters’ opportunity “to elect representatives of their choice” excludes elected judges because judges are not “representatives.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that § 2’s coverage includes state judicial elections, including elections for state supreme court justices.
- The Court rejected the view that the term “representatives” in § 2(b) categorically excludes judges elected by popular vote.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to judicial elections when judges are selected through popular election.
- The 1982 amendments to § 2 adopted a results test and were not read to narrow the category of elections covered absent clear congressional direction.
- Section 2(a) and § 2(b) must be read together; the term “representatives” in § 2(b) is construed broadly to include winners of popular elections, including judges.
- Statutory interpretation of the Voting Rights Act favors a broad remedial construction consistent with enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 2’s post-1982 results test reaches state judicial elections and that minority vote-dilution claims challenging judicial election structures are not barred on the theory that elected judges are outside § 2(b)’s reference to “representatives of their choice.”


Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991)