Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneydiscriminationbaildeclaratory judgment
attorneybailappellant

Related Cases

Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U.S. 454, 61 S.Ct. 334, 85 L.Ed. 275
View Case »
In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1072
View Case »
Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 107 S.Ct. 1722, 95 L.Ed.2d 209, 55 USLW 4522, 13 Media L. Rep. 2313
View Case »
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, Am.Ann.Cas. 1918E,724
View Case »
Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1 Media L. Rep. 1001
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

City of Rome v. U. S., 446 U.S. 156, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 64 L.Ed.2d 119

Facts

In 1966, the City of Rome made significant changes to its electoral system, including moving from plurality to majority voting for City Commission members and implementing residency requirements for Board of Education members. The city also annexed 60 areas between 1964 and 1975. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, these changes required preclearance from the Attorney General, who ultimately refused to preclear them, citing potential discrimination against Negro voters. The city then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking relief from the Act.

In 1966, appellant city of Rome, Ga., made certain changes in its electoral system, including provisions for majority rather than plurality vote for each of the nine members of the City Commission; for three numbered posts within each of the three (reduced from nine) wards; and for staggered terms for the commissioners and for members of the Board of Education from each ward; and a requirement that members of the Board reside in the wards from which they were elected.

Issue

Whether the City of Rome could utilize the bailout procedure under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act and whether the Act's preclearance requirements were constitutional.

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its applicability to electoral changes and annexations made by the city of Rome, Ga.

Rule

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires jurisdictions to seek preclearance for any changes in voting practices, and a jurisdiction may only escape this requirement through a successful bailout action, which is not available to political subdivisions unless the entire state is exempted.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires preclearance by the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of any change in a 'standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of the Voting Rights Act, concluding that the city of Rome did not qualify for the bailout procedure because it is a political unit within a covered state. The court emphasized that the Act's provisions were designed to prevent both discriminatory purpose and effect in voting practices, and the city failed to demonstrate that its electoral changes did not have a discriminatory effect.

The court analyzed the statutory language of the Voting Rights Act, concluding that the city of Rome did not qualify for the bailout procedure because it is a political unit within a covered state.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the City of Rome could not use the bailout procedure and that the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements were constitutional.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the Voting Rights Act's requirements and found that the city of Rome's electoral changes had a discriminatory effect.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the Voting Rights Act's requirements and found that the city of Rome's electoral changes had a discriminatory effect.

You must be