## Facts

- The City of Rome, Georgia, enacted state-authorized changes to its election systems in 1966, including at-large elections to numbered posts, majority-vote requirements with runoffs, staggered terms, and residency requirements for certain offices.
- From 1964 to 1975, Rome also carried out 60 annexations.
- Georgia was a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), making Rome subject to §5’s requirement that voting changes receive federal preclearance before taking effect.
- Rome submitted its election changes and annexations for administrative preclearance.
- The Attorney General declined to preclear key election changes, concluding they would reduce Black voters’ opportunity to elect preferred candidates in the context of racial bloc voting.
- The Attorney General also declined to preclear 13 annexations for City Commission elections, finding Rome had not met its burden to show the changes would not dilute Black voting strength (though later preclearance was granted for those annexations as to Board of Education elections).
- Rome filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging §5’s applicability, the preclearance denials, and the constitutionality of the 1975 extension; a three-judge court granted summary judgment to the United States, finding discriminatory effect even absent discriminatory purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1975 extension of VRA §5 exceeded Congress’s enforcement power under §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment or violated federalism principles.
2. Whether §5 permissibly bars covered voting changes based on discriminatory effect, even without proof of discriminatory purpose.
3. Whether a municipality within a covered state may independently obtain “bailout” from §5 coverage, or whether only the state as a whole may do so.
4. Whether Rome’s specified election changes and annexations were subject to §5 and could be denied preclearance due to discriminatory effect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the United States in a 6–3 decision (Marshall, J.).
- The Court held that §5, as extended in 1975, was a valid exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority and did not violate principles of federalism.
- The Court held that §5 may deny preclearance to voting changes that have a discriminatory effect, even absent a showing of discriminatory intent.
- The Court held that Rome could not obtain bailout independently; coverage could be terminated only through a statewide bailout mechanism for Georgia.
- The Court upheld denial of preclearance for Rome’s election changes and the 13 annexations as to City Commission elections because Rome failed to carry its burden to show the changes would not worsen minority voters’ effective electoral position.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may enact strong, preventive voting-rights remedies under the Fifteenth Amendment to deter and prevent racial discrimination in voting, including measures addressing effects linked to past discrimination.
- Under VRA §5, covered jurisdictions must obtain preclearance for voting changes and bear the burden of proving the change neither has a discriminatory purpose nor would have a discriminatory effect.
- §5’s effects inquiry permits blocking changes that would cause retrogression in racial minorities’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise.
- The VRA’s coverage and bailout structure, as applied here, does not permit a political subdivision to exit §5 coverage on its own when the state remains covered.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained §5 preclearance and the 1975 extension as valid enforcement legislation under the Fifteenth Amendment, approved an effects-based bar on covered voting changes, rejected municipal bailout, and upheld denial of preclearance for Rome’s election changes and certain annexations due to vote-dilution effects.


City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980)