Appellants
Quentin Rogers, et al.
Appellees
Herman Lodge, et al.
Appellants' Claim
That Burke County's election system for county commissioners violated the rights of African American citizens by watering down their voting power.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
E. Freeman Leverett
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
David F. Walbert
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1982
Decision
Upheld the lower court's ruling that Burke County's election system was discriminatory against African Americans.
Significance
The ruling established that at-large voting systems could be struck down as unconstitutional in cases where there is sufficient evidence to prove that thesystem was maintained for purposefully discriminatory purposes. Historical data showing that minorities have been denied effective participation in the electoral process, can be employed as evidence in such cases.
Burke County, a large rural county in eastern Georgia, employed an at-large system for electing candidates to its governing body, the county board of commissioners. Under this arrangement, each of the five commissioners were elected by all registered voters in the county, rather than by discrete districts drawn along geographical lines. Although Burke County had a substantial African American population, no minority candidate had ever been elected to its board of commissioners. In 1976, a group of eight African American citizens filed a class action suit in federal district court, on the grounds that the at-large system violated their rights under the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Rogers further alleged thatthe dilution of their voting power was intentional and discriminatory on thebasis of race.
The Lower Courts Rule
The federal district court found for Rogers. It held that, while the state had not acted in an overtly discriminatory manner in instituting the at-large voting system, the system was being maintained for purposes of violating the constitutional rights of African American voters. The court's examination of voting patterns in Burke County also turned up evidence of bloc voting on racial lines. In this way, the county had effectively barred its African Americanresidents from participating fully in the electoral process. The district court ordered Burke County to replace its at-large system with district votingto ensure full participation of all minority groups.
The case then proceeded to the court of appeals, which affirmed the districtcourt's decision. It reviewed the district court's findings, and agreed thatthere was overwhelming evidence of discriminatory practices in Burke County.After determining its jurisdiction in the dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
The Supreme Court Rules
On 1 July 1982, the Supreme Court issued its decision. It affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that Burke County's electoral system violatedthe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The High Court's decision addressed the three key points at issue.
Consistent with previous rulings, the Supreme Court did not strike down at-large voting schemes as unconstitutional per se. However, it allowed forchallenges to such a system in cases where it could be shown that the at-large arrangement was established or maintained for discriminatory purposes. With respect to this particular case, the Supreme Court declined to dispute thefindings of the district court on the issue of discriminatory practices. Finally, the Supreme Court refused to consider the propriety of the relief offered by the district court, namely the division of Burke County into single-member electoral districts.
The Supreme Court's decision reflected its deep ambivalence about the constitutionality of at-large voting systems. Writing for the majority, Justice White issued the following opinion:
Dissenting Voices
There were three dissenters in the case. Justice Powell, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented on the grounds that the objective proof in the case did not establish discriminatory intent on the part of Burke County. Powell wrote:
Justice Stevens dissented on similar grounds. He had misgivings about the advisability of divining discriminatory intent in the minds of the at-large system's architects. He wrote:
Impact
In the years that followed, the Court wrestled with the question of the inherent unconstitutionality of at-large voting arrangements. Its inability to establish an absolute standard for defining electoral discrimination is reflected in the unusually vehement dissents. The U.S. Congress, through amendments to the Voting Rights Act and other legislation, attempted to address the problem of minority disenfranchisement through statutory means.
Related Cases
Quentin Rogers, et al.
Appellees
Herman Lodge, et al.
Appellants' Claim
That Burke County's election system for county commissioners violated the rights of African American citizens by watering down their voting power.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
E. Freeman Leverett
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
David F. Walbert
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1982
Decision
Upheld the lower court's ruling that Burke County's election system was discriminatory against African Americans.
Significance
The ruling established that at-large voting systems could be struck down as unconstitutional in cases where there is sufficient evidence to prove that thesystem was maintained for purposefully discriminatory purposes. Historical data showing that minorities have been denied effective participation in the electoral process, can be employed as evidence in such cases.
Burke County, a large rural county in eastern Georgia, employed an at-large system for electing candidates to its governing body, the county board of commissioners. Under this arrangement, each of the five commissioners were elected by all registered voters in the county, rather than by discrete districts drawn along geographical lines. Although Burke County had a substantial African American population, no minority candidate had ever been elected to its board of commissioners. In 1976, a group of eight African American citizens filed a class action suit in federal district court, on the grounds that the at-large system violated their rights under the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Rogers further alleged thatthe dilution of their voting power was intentional and discriminatory on thebasis of race.
The Lower Courts Rule
The federal district court found for Rogers. It held that, while the state had not acted in an overtly discriminatory manner in instituting the at-large voting system, the system was being maintained for purposes of violating the constitutional rights of African American voters. The court's examination of voting patterns in Burke County also turned up evidence of bloc voting on racial lines. In this way, the county had effectively barred its African Americanresidents from participating fully in the electoral process. The district court ordered Burke County to replace its at-large system with district votingto ensure full participation of all minority groups.
The case then proceeded to the court of appeals, which affirmed the districtcourt's decision. It reviewed the district court's findings, and agreed thatthere was overwhelming evidence of discriminatory practices in Burke County.After determining its jurisdiction in the dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
The Supreme Court Rules
On 1 July 1982, the Supreme Court issued its decision. It affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that Burke County's electoral system violatedthe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The High Court's decision addressed the three key points at issue.
Consistent with previous rulings, the Supreme Court did not strike down at-large voting schemes as unconstitutional per se. However, it allowed forchallenges to such a system in cases where it could be shown that the at-large arrangement was established or maintained for discriminatory purposes. With respect to this particular case, the Supreme Court declined to dispute thefindings of the district court on the issue of discriminatory practices. Finally, the Supreme Court refused to consider the propriety of the relief offered by the district court, namely the division of Burke County into single-member electoral districts.
The Supreme Court's decision reflected its deep ambivalence about the constitutionality of at-large voting systems. Writing for the majority, Justice White issued the following opinion:
At-large voting schemes and multimember districts tend to minimize the voting strength of minority groups by permitting the political majority to elect all representatives of the district. A distinct minority, whether it be a racial, ethnic, economic, or politicalgroup, may be unable to elect any representatives in an at-large election, yet may be able to elect several representatives if the political unit is divided into single-member districts.
Dissenting Voices
There were three dissenters in the case. Justice Powell, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented on the grounds that the objective proof in the case did not establish discriminatory intent on the part of Burke County. Powell wrote:
In the absence of proof of discrimination by reliance on . . . objective factors . . . I would hold that the factors cited by the Court of Appeals are too attenuated as a matter of law to support an inference of discriminatory intent.
Justice Stevens dissented on similar grounds. He had misgivings about the advisability of divining discriminatory intent in the minds of the at-large system's architects. He wrote:
I do not believe that the subjective intent of the persons who adopted the system in 1911, or the intent of those who have since declined to change it, can determine its constitutionality.
Impact
In the years that followed, the Court wrestled with the question of the inherent unconstitutionality of at-large voting arrangements. Its inability to establish an absolute standard for defining electoral discrimination is reflected in the unusually vehement dissents. The U.S. Congress, through amendments to the Voting Rights Act and other legislation, attempted to address the problem of minority disenfranchisement through statutory means.
Related Cases
- Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 (1965).
- Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966).
- Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1064 (1971).
- White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973).
- Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975).
- Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
- Thornburgh v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
Further Readings
- Davis, Olethia. "Tenuous Interpretation: Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act." National Civic Review, fall-winter 1995, p. 310.
- Encyclopedia of the American Constitution New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of theUnited States New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
User Comments Add a comment…