Facts
- After the 1970 census, Georgia enacted a reapportionment plan for its House of Representatives and submitted it for § 5 Voting Rights Act administrative preclearance.
- On November 5, 1971, Georgia submitted a 1971 plan; the Attorney General requested additional information, which Georgia provided on January 6, 1972.
- On March 3, 1972, the Attorney General objected, citing an inability to conclude the plan lacked a discriminatory racial effect, referencing features including multi-member districts, majority runoff elections, and numbered posts.
- Georgia enacted a superseding 1972 plan and submitted it on March 15, 1972; the Attorney General objected on March 24, 1972, finding the new plan did not cure the prior concerns.
- Georgia’s legislature declined to adopt another plan and intended to conduct elections under the 1972 plan despite the objection.
- The United States sued to enjoin elections under the unprecleared 1972 plan; a three-judge district court held § 5 applied and enjoined use of the plan.
- The Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending appeal, allowing elections to proceed under the 1972 plan while review was ongoing.
Issues
- Whether Georgia’s reapportionment plan changes were “standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting” requiring § 5 preclearance.
- Whether the Attorney General could require Georgia, as the submitting jurisdiction, to prove the plan lacked discriminatory purpose or effect, and whether Georgia satisfied that burden.
- Whether the Attorney General’s objection to the 1971 submission was untimely under § 5’s 60-day objection period.
- What remedy was appropriate given that elections had already occurred under the 1972 plan pursuant to a Supreme Court stay.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The Court held Georgia’s 1972 reapportionment changes were covered by § 5 because they had the potential to dilute Black voting strength.
- The Court upheld the Attorney General’s allocation of the burden to Georgia to show the plan lacked discriminatory purpose or effect, and agreed Georgia did not meet that burden.
- The Court sustained the Attorney General’s regulation treating the 60-day objection period as running from receipt of the necessary information to evaluate a submission.
- The Court held that completed elections held under the stay need not be redone, but future elections under the 1972 plan must be enjoined unless and until Georgia obtains § 5 clearance for a valid plan.
Legal Principles
- Reapportionment and districting changes that may dilute minority voting power are “standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting” subject to § 5 preclearance in covered jurisdictions.
- In § 5 administrative preclearance, the submitting jurisdiction bears the burden to show a proposed change lacks discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect; the Attorney General may object if unable to reach that conclusion.
- The Attorney General may reasonably treat § 5’s 60-day objection period as beginning when the submission contains the information needed for an informed review.
- When elections have occurred under a plan used pursuant to judicial stay, courts may decline to order new elections while still barring future use of an unprecleared plan.
Conclusion
The Court enforced § 5’s preclearance regime against Georgia’s post-census reapportionment by treating vote-dilution risks as covered voting changes, placing the burden on the State to prove nondiscrimination, validating the Attorney General’s timing regulation, and permitting past elections to stand while prohibiting future elections under the unprecleared plan.