## Facts

- Five Black voters in Granville County, North Carolina brought a class action challenging the county’s at-large method of electing county commissioners under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Under the existing system, commissioners were elected county-wide at large (with residency requirements), and no Black candidate had ever been elected despite a substantial Black share of the population and electorate.
- The parties stipulated that the at-large system violated § 2 by diluting Black voting strength and denying Black voters an equal opportunity to elect candidates of choice.
- The district court ordered the parties to attempt to agree on a remedy; failing agreement, the County was to propose a remedial plan.
- The County proposed a remedial plan increasing the board from five to seven members and replacing at-large elections with seven single-member districts, with staggered terms; the plan included one majority-Black district and at least one additional district where Black voters could potentially be decisive.
- The County’s plan received preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Plaintiffs proposed a county-wide at-large “limited voting” plan with non-staggered terms, limiting each voter to fewer votes than the number of seats to be filled, which was expected to allow election of more Black commissioners.
- The district court rejected the County’s single-member district plan and imposed a modified limited-voting at-large plan.
- The County and county commissioners appealed the remedial order.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may reject a legislatively enacted, precleared, legally adequate remedial plan for a conceded § 2 violation and instead impose a court-preferred limited-voting at-large remedy.
2. Whether § 2 permits a court to choose a remedy primarily because it would likely produce a level of minority electoral success closer to proportional representation.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for implementation of the County’s single-member district plan.
- The court held the district court exceeded its remedial authority by displacing a legally acceptable legislative remedy.
- The court concluded the County’s single-member district plan was an adequate response to the stipulated § 2 violation and could not be rejected merely because another remedy might elect more Black candidates.
- The court directed a transition to the County’s plan notwithstanding practical complications arising from the district court’s interim remedial elections.

## Legal Principles

- Primary responsibility for remedying an unlawful election system lies with the governmental body; a federal court should not substitute its own plan unless the legislative plan is legally unacceptable.
- Single-member districting is a traditional and accepted method for curing vote dilution under § 2.
- Section 2 does not create a right to proportional representation; a remedy is not defective solely because it does not maximize or approximate proportional minority officeholding.
- Preclearance under § 5 supports (though does not alone decide) the acceptability of a remedial plan; absent an independent legal defect, judicial preference for an alternative is insufficient to override the legislative choice.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that once Granville County adopted a precleared, legally adequate single-member district remedy for a conceded § 2 vote-dilution violation, the district court was required to accept that legislative cure and could not impose a limited-voting at-large system simply to increase the likelihood of proportional minority representation.


McGhee v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 860 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1988)