## Facts

- Two consolidated appeals involved Alabama county commissions subject to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance for covered jurisdictions’ changes in any “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.”
- County commissioners were elected by voters, and the commissions’ principal function included supervising county road work and related expenditures.
- In Etowah County, a precleared consent decree replaced at-large elections with single-member districts; Lawrence C. Presley, a Black candidate, won a seat under the new arrangement.
- After the election, the holdover commissioners adopted the Common Fund Resolution without § 5 preclearance, shifting road funds from commissioner-controlled district allocations to a centralized common pool and reducing each district commissioner’s control over spending in their district.
- In Russell County, commissioners were elected at large with district residency requirements; the commission adopted the Unit System without § 5 preclearance, abolishing individual road districts and transferring road operations authority to a county engineer appointed by the commission.
- Separate voting-rights litigation in Russell County ended in a precleared consent decree addressing election arrangements but not the Unit System; two Black candidates, Ed Peter Mack and Nathaniel Gosha III, were elected thereafter.
- Presley, Mack, and Gosha sued in a three-judge federal district court, alleging § 5 violations for implementing the Common Fund Resolution and Unit System without preclearance.
- The three-judge court held neither change was “with respect to voting” under § 5, and the plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Etowah County’s Common Fund Resolution was a change in a “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” requiring § 5 preclearance.
2. Whether Russell County’s Unit System—abolishing road districts and transferring road authority to an appointed engineer—was a change “with respect to voting” requiring § 5 preclearance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment that neither the Common Fund Resolution nor the Unit System required § 5 preclearance.
- The Court held both measures were internal reallocations of governing authority that did not change election mechanics, candidacy requirements, the electorate, or the existence of the elected offices.
- The Court rejected the argument that § 5 coverage turns on whether a restructuring reduces the practical influence of newly elected minority commissioners.

## Legal Principles

- Section 5 applies only to changes that pertain to voting, not to all governmental changes with political consequences.
- Covered § 5 changes commonly include: (1) changes in the manner of voting; (2) changes in candidacy requirements or qualifications; (3) changes in the composition of the electorate for an office; and (4) changes creating or abolishing an elected office.
- A shift in authority among elected officials, or between elected officials and appointed administrators, is generally not a § 5 change when it leaves the electoral system and the elected offices intact.
- § 5 is directed at the rules of voting and representation, not at post-election reallocations of power within government.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 5 preclearance is limited to changes tied to voting and the electoral structure, and it does not reach internal redistributions of authority within local government that do not alter how officials are elected or what elected offices exist.


Presley v. Etowah Cnty. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491 (1992)