## Facts

- Richmond, Virginia obtained state-court approval to annex adjacent territory in Chesterfield County, effective January 1, 1970.
- The annexation reduced the city’s Black population percentage from about 52% to about 42%.
- Richmond’s city council consisted of nine members elected at large; before and after annexation, three elected members were endorsed by a Black civic organization.
- After § 5 of the Voting Rights Act was held to cover annexations, Richmond sought federal preclearance for the annexation but did not obtain approval.
- Richmond filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking § 5 approval of the annexation.
- Richmond adopted a shift from at-large elections to a nine-ward plan: four wards with substantial Black majorities, four with substantial white majorities, and one ward about 59% white and 41% Black; the Attorney General approved the ward plan.
- A Special Master concluded Richmond failed to prove the annexation lacked a discriminatory vote-dilution purpose and that the ward plan did not cure that purpose.
- A three-judge District Court refused § 5 approval; Richmond appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Richmond carried its § 5 burden to show the annexation was not adopted with a discriminatory purpose to dilute Black voting strength.
2. Whether an annexation that lowers the minority’s share of the enlarged city’s population violates § 5 when the post-annexation electoral scheme fairly accounts for the minority’s ability to elect candidates of choice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and directed that the annexation and ward plan be approved under § 5.
- The Court held that an annexation reducing the minority’s relative political strength does not violate § 5 if the post-annexation system fairly recognizes the minority’s political potential.
- The Court concluded the District Court erred in evaluating the evidence on discriminatory purpose and that Richmond showed legitimate, nonracial reasons for annexation.
- The Court found no prohibited discriminatory effect because the ward plan provided Black voters fair electoral opportunity compared with the pre-annexation at-large system.

## Legal Principles

- In a § 5 preclearance action, the covered jurisdiction bears the burden to show a voting change lacks both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect.
- Section 5’s effect inquiry focuses on whether the change causes retrogression in minorities’ effective exercise of the franchise, not whether minorities maintain the same population percentage or proportional representation.
- An annexation that decreases a minority group’s population share is not per se unlawful under § 5 if the total post-change electoral structure provides minority voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice.
- A jurisdiction may pair an annexation with structural election changes (such as single-member wards) that neutralize potential dilutive consequences, so long as § 5’s purpose and effect requirements are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Court required § 5 approval where Richmond’s annexation, though reducing the Black share of the city’s population, was coupled with a ward-based electoral plan that preserved minority voters’ practical ability to elect representatives, and where the evidence did not support a finding of discriminatory purpose or retrogressive effect.


City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975)