United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm'rs

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF OF COMMISSIONERS

SHEFFIELD, ALABAMA, et al. Argued 76-1662. No. October 197 7 Decided March Court, Stewart, J., opinion delivered the in which Brennan, joined, III of JJ., and in Part which Blackmun, White, Marshall, post, p. joined. Blacicmun, J., concurring opinion, J., filed a Powell, part concurring in J., opinion concurring in filed an Powell, 138. opinion, post, dissenting p. J., filed judgment, Stevens, J., J., joined, post, p. 140. Burger, Rehnquist, C. cause for the Attorney Days argued General Assistant brief were States. With him on Solicitor United McCree, Ryan, Jr., Barnett, Judith E. A. Walter W. and Allan Wolf. argued appellees. McAlister the cause With

Vincent W. * him on the brief was Braxton Ashe. opinion delivered the of the Court. Beennan

Me. Justice Rights (Act), of the Act of Voting Section 5 Stat. (1970 Supp. amended, ed., V),1 as S. C. 1973c 439, Martinez, O’Neill, Joaquin filed *Brian J. Vilma S. G. Avila a brief Legal for the Mexican American Defense and Educational Fund et al. urging reversal. Independent Ross filed a School District

James E. brief Westheimer as amicus curiae. (1970 ed., Supp. V), 5, set forth in 42 C. 1973c Section as U. S. part: provides pertinent in respect or with to which the subdivision

“Whenever (a) (a) prohibitions Act, in 1973b this title forth section set [§ amended], upon as based determinations made under the first 438, 79 Stat. (b) (b) Act, 438, 1973b of this title sentence of section Stat. [§ amended], voting are in seek to as effect shall enact or administer voting, qualification standard, practice, procedure prerequisite or or or requires like States, which are Alabama, covered under § 4 of the Act, 438, amended, Stat. as U. S. C. 1973b (1970 ed., Supp. V),2 prior approval obtain federal before any voting changing practice or procedure that was effect on November 1, questions for decision this case 5 requires city whether an Alabama that has never registration3 preclearance conducted voter of a to obtain vot- if ing change so, Attorney whether the failure of the (2), respect different from or effect force on November may . . . such State or subdivision institute an action in the United declaratory judg- States District Court for District of Columbia for a qualification, standard, prerequisite, procedure ment that such practice, or purpose denying does have the and will not or have effect of abridging right color, account . to vote on of race or . . and unless judgment person right until the court enters such no shall be denied the comply qualification, prerequisite, standard, vote for failure to with such practice, procedure: Provided, prerequisite, or That such qualification, procedure may standard, practice, if proceeding or be enforced without such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, procedure has been legal appropriate the chief officeror submitted other officialof such State Attorney Attorney or subdivision to the General and the General has interposed objection sixty days upon within submission, an such after days shown, expedited good approval sixty cause an within facilitate submission, affirmatively after such indicated that General has objection such will not made. . . .” (b), Pursuant to the first sentence of 4 Alabama as a was § August 6, jurisdiction 1965, Reg. 9897, having covered on 30 Fed. it been 1, determined that maintained a or Alabama “test device” on November per 1964, persons age and that “less than centum of of [those] registered residing 1, 1964, were on or . . November . voted [in Alabama] 438, amended, in 1964 Presidential C. as U. S. [the election].” Stat. (1970 V). (b) ed., Supp. 1973b Alabama Because has not established judicial qualification requirements proceeding in a that the voter had denying been or the purpose abridging used for the with the effect of (a), right race, subject prohibitions of it to vote to the of 4 account (a) (1970 ed., Supp. V), and hence 5. see U. S. C. 1973b to registration by Alabama, county boards, is conducted the voter appointed by specified Code, of members which are state officials. See Ala. 17, 17-4-40 Tit. holding of a object to the United of the States to

General change adopted a constitutes at which referendum election change. approval federal of

I incor- Sheffield), was city (City of Ala. Sheffield, The incorpo- As porated by Legislature. Alabama the by mayor eight council- governed the was a City rated, n from of directly each being two councilmen elected men, mayor-council City’s the four wards. Sheffield retained this in which adopted system a government until when the City ran large, the commissioners, three elected City. of was in effect government This commission form on November 1, Sheffield put 20, decided to prior

Sometime to March Sheffield question City should return referendum the whether the a mayor-council government.4 form of On that date wrote president of of Commissioners Sheffield the Board of Attorney “give notice of General of the United States submitting qualified City, of to the voters of the proposal commission present government form shall whether Mayor and Alderman form of abandoned favor 5 May On General government.” 13,1975, Attorney before the considering The record reflects that the citizens of Sheffield been had change During City 1960’s, the late some time. wrote questions Attorney concerning of Alabama and a number raised procedures adopting mayor-council and mechanics for form government. the form reply, The Alabama General’s which took procedures opinion letter, of an advised what would have be followed change City effect such and informed that if the electorate voted government to abandon the commission form of Sheffield return to would government time aldermanic form “as it existed at the ... government adopted.” form commission provided proposed letter the mechanics of the referendum governed by were Art. 3 of Title 37 Code of Alabama — City presumably Chapter meant 4 of Code, Art. Title Ala. now the replied, referendum and the occurred, voters Sheffield approved change. the

On May 23, the Attorney responded Genearl formally Sheffield interpose that he did “not objection an to the holding referendum,” the but City voters the “[s]inee Sheffield elected adopt mayor-council the govern- form of May ment on 1975, 13, change also subject to the preclearance requirements of Attorney Section 5.” The Gen- eral’s letter also stated that in the City event the should elect to preclearance seek change Attorney from the it should submit detailed concerning information the change, including a description of “the aldermanic form of govern- ment which in 1912 existed and by the method which was e., i. elected, number of aldermen, and qualifi- terms mayor for cations and aldermen, whether the aldermen were large elected at wards, whether there num- were majority bered post, residency, staggered require- vote or term ments the aldermanic seats, single and whether shot voting prohibited.” City Thereafter the informed General that the proposed change City divide would into four wards of substantially equal population, that each ward would have two council that councilmen from seats, each ward would be elected large, that candidates would run for numbered places. Subsequently City furnished detailed map showing boundaries, concerning ward population data dis- history tribution race for each ward, of black can- didacy city county City’s offices since 1965. sub- completed May 5, mission was July On 6, Attorney General City notified the seq. “[p]resent Tit. 11-4A-150 et existing voting wards —that (but changed may at the equitably adjusted time at a date)” they in present “if later fact were—and that commission —as [mayor-aldermanic type abandoned, form that existed in 1912] automatically would be reinstated.” change “interpose objection to the he

that while did proposed ... to the mayor-council government form of to a the mayor and the election of the at-large district lines or to implementation the object he president council,” of the did city councilmen electing of proposed method at-large election at-large he was to conclude that the because “unable a will not have required councilmen to reside districts racially discriminatory effect.” City the Attorney objection, General’s

Notwithstanding the August for at-large council election scheduled an this suit the August On States instituted 9, the United Alabama to enforce for the Northern District of District Court order was denied. objection. temporary restraining A its 5§ was con three-judge election was court held, After the Supp. 786 suit. F. vened and that court dismissed the unanimously that Sheffield (1977). The District Court held6 “political sub because is not a was not covered 6§ Act, the (c) term is defined in division” as that provides (c)(2), S. C. 19731 79 Stat. “ any county or ex parish, shall mean 'political subdivision’ conducted under registration for cept that where shall include supervision county the term parish, registration which conducts any other subdivision The 790-792. at 788-789 and voting.” Supp., See F. “by approving held, judge dissenting, also one court change Attorney approved fact General referendum government which aldermen Mayor-Council form [in to the large] notwithstanding at statement] were elected [his Id., pre-clearance.” subject also change that the was City ground Attorney initially on decided case court day July 6, 1976, objection time and hence was one out of General’s that, rehearing found However, petition the court ineffective. timely. holiday, July objection 5, 1976, July was a federal because grounds, Supp., 787. The court then other 430 F. considered See discussed infra.

at 789. The court reasoned that the approval referen- dum constituted clearance of aspects those proposed change that the knew should have known implemented would be if the referendum passed and that he should have known that Sheffield would obliged to follow Ala. Code § 11-43-40 (1975) formerly Tit. Code, Ala. — 426 (Supp. 1973) requires the election at-large —which aldermen in cities, like Sheffield, populations with of less than 20,000. 430 F. Supp., at probable juris- 789-790. We noted diction. 433 U. S. 906 We reverse.

II We first consider whether intended to exclude from 5§ coverage political like units, Sheffield, which have never conducted registration. voter In concluding Con- gress did, the District Court noted that to applies “a [designated] state [designated] political subdivision” and construed provide § 5 to entirety where that, State its has been designated for only coverage, political units within it subject that are to “political § are those that are subdivi- sions” within meaning (c)(2). (c) §of Because § only refers to counties and to the govern- units state register ment that voters, the District Court held that units like City subject to imposed by the duties §5.

There is abundant evidence that the District inter- Court’s pretation of contrary the Act is to congressional intent. and most First, significantly, the District construc- Court’s tion is inconsistent with the Act’s structure, makes cover- upon a age depend completely factor Act’s irrelevant purposes, thereby permits precisely the kind of circumven- of congressional policy designed prevent. tion § was language of the Act does not Second, require crip- such a pling interpretation, but rather is susceptible reading fully implement congressional objectives. will Finally, flatly with the Court’s construction inconsistent the District interpretations of 5 and General’s consistent and re-enactments. legislative history of its enactment per- purposes the Act language, structure, history, provisions us constitutional like the suade having power designed applies all implement, entities process within aspect over the electoral state to whatever units of to counties or jurisdictions, not voters. registering function of government perform the A workings of the Although this Court has described g., Allen Voting Rights prior see, e. cases, Elections, Carolina v. (1969); South Board 393 U. S. Katzenbach, appropriate again it is (1966), 383 U. special function and the purposes summarize its and structure the Congress implement in 1965 to adopted of 5. the Act discrimi- blight of racial Fifteenth and erase the Amendment of 308. The core the voting. S., in 383 U. at nation See at areas aimed stringent of remedies complex “is scheme a Id., flagrant.” been most voting discrimination has the where because to stern measures 315. resorted these at the necessary to eradicate had them to be experience shown in of discrimination pervasive and evil [racial “insidious our of parts in certain perpetuated voting] that had been discrimina- Id., Earlier country.” efforts to end at proved case-by-case litigation had ineffec- facilitating by tion “unusually suits had been part voting because in large tive produce results. “exceedingly slow” to to and prepare” onerous the obtained, had been favorable decisions And when even discriminatory “merely switched to often jurisdictions affected id., federal decrees.” See covered devices not 313-314. relatively simple. of the Act are operation

The structure

119 (a) (b) jurisdictions Sections determine the that subject special to the Act’s having measures. found Congress, there was a high probability pervasive that of racial discrimi- voting nation in in employed areas that tests literacy or similar voting qualifications and in had voter that, addition, low registration provided turnouts or figures, in a coverage “triggered” State is any if maintained “test or on device” specified date and if it registration had voter or voter turnout (a), (a) (1970 Section 4 as set forth in 42 S. C. ed., Supp. V), 1973b provides pertinent part: in right

“To assure of of the States vote is to citi[z]ens United abridged not denied on color, or account of or race no citizen shall be right any Federal, denied the State, vote or local election because of any comply any his failure to or respect with test device in with which the determinations have been made under the first two sentences (b) any political subsection of this section or in respect subdivision with which such separate unit, determinations have been made as unless United States District Court District of Columbia an for action declaratory judgment brought against such State or subdivision United has determined that no such test or States device has been used during years preceding filing seventeen purpose action denying or abridging right with the effect vote account race or color . . . .” pertinent part, (b), (1970 (b) forth as set in U. S. 1973b C. ed., Supp. provides: V), provisions “The (a) (a)] apply subsection this section shall [§ any any political (1) State or in subdivision a State which 1, determines maintained 1964, device, on November test or respect Director of Census determines per than persons age residing centum of the less therein were registered on November such per less than 50 centum of persons presidential voted in election of November 1964.” 9 (c) require Section 4 any defines “test or to “mean device” person prerequisite ment that voting registration voting a as a for or for ability read, (1) any demonstrate the interpret or write, understand, matter, any knowledge demonstrate educational his achievement or any particular (3) possess subject, (4) prove good character, or his moral qualifications by registered any voucher voters or members of other (c). class.” Stat. 42 U. S. C. 1973b § during specified of less than of those of voting age Presi- 50% dential elections. When this formula is not met in an entire coverage State, triggered any “political is in subdivision” (c) within State that satisfies the formula. Since § the Act defines or “prerequisite “test device” aas registration (c) 1973b voting,” S. C. § Stat. (emphasis General, it in supplied), is clear that the not making coverage a is to consider determination, jurisdiction, but also the registration process voter within a polling officials at procedures followed election A places. political subdivision which does use State or may em- literacy register tests determine to vote but who may places at the to- who ploys polling such tests determine (b). may plainly § cast a ballot covered under be jurisdiction If under will become §4(b), subject special establishes, to the Act’s remedies unless it in judicial that no “test or device” was used dis- action, 4 (a) on the basis of race in Section voting.' criminate provisions. core remedial one the Act’s Because literacy tests employment determined that the continued perpetuate racial and similar devices covered areas would suspended (a). in 4 as the discrimination, it their use Just § elections every political actions unit that conducts every (b), (a) imposes duty under so relevant having entity jurisdictions power covered over the elec- entity registers voters. process, whether or toral from the (a) geographic reach clear both That has by any may employed device” oficial fact that a “test or any (a)’s and from aspect of an election with control over operates any [designated] “in suspension its provision (Em- subdivision.” any [designated] political State ... congressional objectives plainly re- supplied.) phasis designated juris- each (a) apply throughout 4 quired scope, the States, If not have this covered did diction.10 question to the Act eliminate but that amendments The 1975 which in past the ingenious had been so in their defiance of spirit of federal law, easily could have circumvented 4 (a) by, g., discontinuing e. literacy the use of deter- tests to may register mine who but requiring pass that all citizens literacy tests the polling places at voting. before

Although (a)4 potent weapon, Congress recognized that it alone would not ensure an end to racial discrimination voting in covered areas. past, politi- States cal units within them responded had to federal out- decrees lawing discriminatory practices by “resort [ing] to the extraor- dinary stratagem contriving new rules of various kinds purpose sole of perpetuating voting discrimina- tion . . . .” Katzenbach, South S., Carolina v. 383 U. prevent To future circumvention constitutional policy, Congress adopted provides § 5 which that whenever a designated or political change State subdivision wishes to voting laws, its in- must first demonstrate to federal strumentality change nondiscriminatory. that will be By freezing jurisdiction’s each covered procedures, election Congress advantages shifted of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. foregoing key provisions discussion remedial belies the District Court’s conclusion that § 5 should only

apply to counties and to the units political that conduct (a) prohibition 'apply ’s has to to all within units jurisdictions. jurisdictions provide that, Since these amendments toas coverage they registra are considered for because had low voter turnout or election, phrase tion in November “test or includes device” “any registration notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or or other relating ballots, process, including or information to the materials electoral English language, in the where Director of the Census determines per voting age more residing than five centum citizens such minority [,]” single language subdivision members of (f)(3) (1970 ed., V), C. Supp. 89 Stat. 1973b it is indis contemplated suspension putable tests and devices apply employed by would to local officials other than those counties government registration. of state the functional units that conduct voter registration. Act, from apparent § voter As “was ' dramatic step to assure the effectiveness of the structured clearly designed in 4” “is to Congress had and § that taken .” Allen Board lock-step march 4 . . . v. State § in with Elections, dis- J., concurring at S., (Harlan, 393 U. under senting). jurisdictions may §4 Since be designated (b) do not by reason of the election officials who actions of register election voters, (a) and since 4 duties all imposes § they registration, officials whether or not involved voter it to to all appears necessarily apply to follow has § within exercising processes entities control over electoral In in view any case, the covered or subdivisions. States adopt unthinkable to Act, the structure it would be persuasive unless evi- District Court’s construction there were only apply changes § either that 5 was to dence intended to clearly registration affecting process or to counties or coverage manifested intention to 5§ an restrict But register units local voters. government to the neither supports conclusion. clearly of the Act and decisions of this Court The terms apply voting to indicate that intended to registration process. within occurring Section changes qualification prerequisite voting, or to applies “any voting respect . procedure voting standard, practice, ...” statutory “voting” includes “all action definition of Since . . . includ- election, effective necessary make vote ballot, . . . registration, casting to, not limited ing, but . properly ,” 445, . such ballot counted . Stat. having affecting of laws coverage 5’s (c)(1), § 1973Í U. S. C. comprehensive. given years have past decisions over the Court’s of the Act. scope suggested language 5 the broad Elections, in Allen v. State Board it first construed We objectives and of the Act’s our examination supra. There give “the history interpret 5 to legislative led .us original possible scope,” broadest S., require prior at scrutiny “any federal state enactment which altered the law election in a covered Id., even minor way.” at 566. so construing unanimously rejected § we 11—asthe plain terms of the Act would themselves seemingly have required argument appellee of an apply should —the only to enactments may who affecting register to vote. 393 S.,U. Our required decisions have preclearance federal of laws changing the location of polling Perkins places, see Matthews, 400 379 (1971), systems U. S. laws adopting at-large ibid.; of election, Fairley (decided Allen, v. Patterson with supra); providing laws appointment previously of elected Bunton officials, (decided Allen, v. Patterson with supra); laws regulating candidacy, Whitley v. Williams (decided Allen, with supra); changing voting laws procedures, Allen, supra; City annexations, States, Richmond v. United of (1975); City Petersburg U. S. 358 States, United v. (1973), summarily U. S. 962 Supp. 354 F. 1021 (DC aff'd 1972); Matthews, supra; Perkins reapportionment v. and States, redistricting, Beer v. United 425 U. 130 (1976); S. Georgia States, v. United 411 U. S. 526 (1973); see United. Organizations Jewish v. Carey, 430 U. each scrutiny proposed federal case, change required change deny because the had or dilute potential rights (a). § conférred in

Significantly, cases, several of these decided Court preclearance requirement applied § that 5’s to cities within inquiring States without ever whether the cities registration. States, conducted voter See Beer v. United States, City Richmond supra; supra; United Perkins v. 11Although both Mr. Justice Harlan and Justice Mr. Black dissented aspects Allen, disagreed holding of the Court’s neither with the from changes 'proposition occurring had to be construed to cover that statute process. registration S., (Harlan, J., 393 U. at See 591-593 outside dissenting); id., (Black, dissenting). at 595 concurring J., Matthews, supra. doubtful, It 5 would moreover, § applicable have been held be least one these cases if interpretation the District Court’s 5 were the law.12 Although assumption of these decisions—that cities are they registration per- covered whether or not conduct voter — haps having significance has little stare decisis issue not —the raised, States, been but see Brown Shoe Co. v. United 370 U. S. decisions the obvious fact underscore —these they enact register cities can that, voters, whether voting with the to dilute or defeat potential measures they further rights minority members, illustrate group apply duties could not intended 5’s have register cities to those voters. changes a' judgment voting Because 5 embodies registration process potential have occurring outside the it would be race, on the basis of discriminate coverage turn irrational on whether registers itself enacting administering change unit con- cramped from the quite apart But fact that this voters. objec- reasonable set squared struction cannot permit interpretation of 5 would the District Court’s tives, it, Under designed eliminate. evil that precise § be respond would free to entities like Sheffield political local and power limit the of minorities pressure political local entirely temporarily least, dilute steps at or would, take that g., for the providing e. voting rights minorities, defeat had mov- appointment previously elected, who been of officials city States, course, City involved a United Richmond v. basis, citywide Virginia. registration, voter while conducted on There by performed, employees of the at that is—-and was the time of case— by judges. city, by appointed state See Va. Code an electoral board but 1977). (Supp. Elec 24.1, While Richmond’s §§24.1-29, 24.1-43—24.1-46 5, reading the District Court’s be under toral Board would covered § city that the severe would not —a fact illustrates that the itself would seem impose would on the that Court’s construction limitations the District reach of 5.§

ing polling places to areas of city minority where group safely members could not travel, or providing even that election officials could not minority count the ballots of voters. The recourse for the minority group affected members by such changes would be the one implicitly found to be unsatisfactory: repeated litigation. See United Jewish Organizations Carey, supra, at 156. District Court's reading of place § would thus advantages time and inertia back on perpetrators of the discrimination as to all by elections political conducted units that do not register voters, equally and, seriously, it would invite States to circumvent the Act in by all other allowing elections local entities do registration not conduct voter control aspects process. critical of the electoral consequence The clear interpretation this would be nullify 5§ both and the Act large number potential of its applications.13 dissenting opinion disputes Our Brother Stevens’ neither that § (a)’s apply duties designated jurisdictions to all units within nor disagrees 5 was (a) enacted to assure the effectiveness of 4 preventing newly voting rights. the contrivance of new rules to defeat won But, advancing arguments unanimously rejected by in addition to Allen, post, 145, followingit, compare Court in numerous decisions at argues supra, 122-123, congressional policies at the dissent that several promoted register will if do nevertheless cities that voters remain purpose perpetuating free to concoct new the sole measures for suggestion Congress did purely discrimination. His not intend to cover elections, post, overwhelming local overlooks both the evidence that right is intended to secure to vote local as well as state elections, g., (1) (c) Act, see, e. C. national Stat. (c) {“any primary, special, general covered), election” is point the more that local fundamental units that do not conduct may registration conduct control state and national elections. Our suggestion Stevens’ Brother further an adventitious on the limitation necessary deluge reach of because otherwise a of trivial submissions impair conjures specter preclearance unsupported will function that is Ironically, legislative theory support record. statistical this for hearings repeatedly a Congress from conducted derived that understanding applied voting changes every that 5 to the manifested its § 126

B such absurd result. require The terms of the do an Court arriving interpretation § its the District or subdivision with language focused its “a State 4 respect prohibitions (a)] to which the set forth in based [§ upon are in effect.” [§4(b)] determinations made under phrase [designated] “in a or §While 5’s failure to State use that arguably provides subdivision” a basis for an inference 4 (a), 5 reach of § § ’was intended to have the territorial is to be suggest coverage the actual terms of its § spe- coverage provision § coterminous of 5 (a)’s. §with The itself cifically refers both a fact which (a) (b), § § reach implies that 14 (c) (2)- 4—not to determine the § § —-is §of And view. Section supports § the content provides respect “with apply jurisdictions that it is to the (a)’s prohibitions which” in effect. Since the States §4 are §4(a)’s which” respect “with subdivisions county govern- apply just entire territories and not duties register government voters, § units of ments local territorially must, seem, apply it would as well.

Quite apart interrelationship fact the textual from the affirmatively 5 is to suggests § § § between (a) statute operative language have a territorial reach, of 5. (c) (2) scope limits the any suggestion belies for designated coverage', been has Where, here, as operative subdivision” has no meaning “political of the term of 5: the determining question the reach significance in no “[designated] There is more meaning of State.” is the treating (c) as history or its the statute basis in treating limiting there is it as §of 5 than limiting the reach (a). 4§ support this construction 5’s considerations

Broader implement the Fif- designed course, Act, terms. jurisdiction. infra, at 133— Compare each political unit within 147-148, nn. 8-11. post, at teenth in Amendment some and, Fourteenth respects, Morgan, see Katzenbach v. Amendment, 384 U. S. 641 (1966); Katzenbach, South Carolina v. (1966). 383 U. One S. would expect the substantive imposed that duties Act, inas provisions constitutional it designed imple- to would apply only formally ment, governmental entities acting in the name of State, political but also to those units may exercise control critical aspects over of the voting proc- ess. Erickson, Cf. Hunter v. Terry U. S. 385 (1969); Adams, 345 461 (1953). S. is, It the case that the course, term “State” does not have meaning throughout this the Act. For the Attorney may example, designate city for coverage (b) under 4§ theory city’s actions are often action”; “state for purposes of designation, “State” specific geographic refers territory in entirety. its itBut is clear that once a designated State is for coverage the Act’s provisions apply remedial to actions that are not for- mally those of the State. Section (a), applies to course, all state actors, legislative even the history upon by relied the District Court reveals the congressional understanding the reference to “State” in § includes units within it.14 This appear alone would sufficient reason to make preclearance § 5’s requirement apply to all state action. So 14The upon District Court relied following excerpt legis from the history: lative “Where an entire State (b)] within . . . falls subsection so each does [4 every political subdivision Rep. 439, within that State.” H. R. No. Cong., Sess., 89th (1965); 1st Rep. see Cong., No. 1st 89th Sess., 3, p. pt. course, Of assumption the District contrary Court’s to the notwith- standing, this statement does not establish that entities in subject States which are to 5 are those that are either counties § register or the units Indeed, voters. since statement also pertains scope (a), of 4 clearly applies to all units within jurisdictions, covered it is upon difficult to see how can be relied support crippling interpretation of 5.§ of the explicit relationship view textual 4 and between (c) the irrelevance meaning “[designated] to the and the critical State,” play securing role that promise wholly logical interpret of is . (a), § it to “State . . respect (a) referring which” is as to all § effect political units within it. State, is a

Because in this case designated jurisdiction when we a question applies need not consider of how political entity. we observe designated subdivision is the But 5’s refer argument concerning § that a similar can be made “[designated] political subdivision,” ence and this fact reference parallel of plainly supports interpretation our 5’s background §of legislative The “[designated] State.” that Con (2)’s “political definition of subdivision” reflects (c) areas of gress define subdivision” as “political intended to or only as functional units levels nondesignated State,15 defi clearly of The follows this government. conclusion determin operate purposes for nition was intended may be nondesignated units in States ing which “county statutory (c) (2)' defining as a terms of 14 subdivision The — registra “any parish” which conducts other subdivision as obviously territory, and voting” geographic refer to a tion for —can history legislative usages “political subdivision” in the Act and the Congress it is in sense term. doubt but that used leave no (a) subdivision,” usage “in a occurs (a)-(c) many see, g., Act, C. 1973a e. 42 U. S. other sections §§ V), if (1970 ed., Súpp. “political be denoted would nonsensical subdivision” government. legislative only specific And the functional units of state history Katzenbach, any basis for doubt. eliminates meaning be understanding the term was intended to em whose Hearings (c)(2), see on H. R. 6400 before Subcommittee bodied in §14 Judiciary, Cong., lst'Sess., 89th 5 of House Committee on No. testimony repeatedly course his before the (1965), stated in the Congress “political referred to areas of subdivision” committees id,., 21, 51, 53, 78; Hearings See, g., e. nondesignated States. Cong., Sess., 1st Judiciary, 89th before the Committee on S. 1564 separately designated coverage under (b).16 §4 Congress seemingly wished to just ensure that as, example, school board could not be separately, designated for coverage in the name of the it State, so could not separately on the theory that it “political was a subdivision” of a State. By the same token, equally clear never intended 14§ (c) (2) definition to limit the substantive reach of the Act's core provision remedial once an area of a nondesignated State had been determined covered; to be all state actors within designated political subdivisions are sub ject 4 (a). view of the “political fact that subdivi sion” was understood referring as to an area of the State, fact that generally aimed at all “state action” occur ring specified within and areas, the textual interrelationship (a) § between and § it5, logically follows that a politi where cal subdivision separately has been designated for coverage under all § subject units within pre it are to the requirement.17 clearance

C Finally, legislative the history and other related aids ascer- taining congressional Congress intent leave little doubt but that statutory The support (c) (2) terms the view that the definition § impose any was not intended to limitations on the reach of the outside designation process. (c) the (2)’s terms, Under 14 “political counties are § they subdivisions” register whether or not voters. While automatic “political inclusion of within counties the definition of subdivision” would square any (c) (2) be difficult to policy rational were 14 intended § identify governmental may subject entities that be to the Act’s duties, readily special explained assumption can inclusion be on the (c) (2) imposes that pertains limitation on the Act § may coverage. areas that Brother Our Stevens’ dissent misconceives for the the basis conclusion susceptible interpretation that under 5’s terms are of an which Sheffield § meaning is that covered. We believe term “State” can bear a that includes all state that, given actors within textual inter (a) relationship between and 4 purposes the related of two § § provisions, reading such a natural one. always view that certainly

has 1975—been of the —and territorially political units (a), applies §4 like and includes they registration. like conduct voter Sheffield whether extensively discussed at question narrow was not specific little, anything, there original enactment, the time but if history way original supports the legislative in the that one Court.18 least crippling construction of District At strongly over statement made in the course the debate suggests Congress never intended distinction draw support register cities do do not voters. between 5 from Act, an amendment that would have stricken Talmadge Georgia the Senate before Senator —minutes argued that the section was reject voted to his amendment — city sought require any would “far-fetched” because it change pre- or administer a to obtain federal to enact Ill While- this state- Cong. clearance. Rec. one proponents, an its opponent Act, ment was made defending whom was floor 5 at the time of Senator on the (re- 111 Cong. (1965) Rec. 10728 Talmadge’s assertion, see disagree with marks of did not his assessment. Tydings), Sen. Talmadge’s intentions, his statement Thus, whatever Senator quotes Brother dissent a number of statements Our from Stevens’ history original which, view, in his legislative statute establish (c) prevent believed would federal interference "minor, governmental post, local units.” See at 142-143. with the affairs provide support colorable these statements considered'in isolation While conclusion, statutory background entirety in its for the dissent’s the makes abundantly history fragments legislative from the it clear that these can congressional intent. support not such a broad assertion as to necessarily interpretation of statements forces one take dissent’s these (because willing position adopt flatly is it is that not even dissent terms): statutory (a) suspension i. 4 ’s with the inconsistent § apply minor, governmental local literacy units. tests does As 128-129, quoted supra, demonstrated, at the statements in the dissent see support as further our conclusion that Con can be understood (c) (2) jurisdictions in 14 to limit the objective was gress’ exclusive (b). coverage under 4 may separately possesses significant pertinence. California, See Arizona v. 546, U. S. 85 n.

What is perhaps a more compelling argument concerning original, and subsequent, congressional understanding scope of § 5 is that Attorney has, General since the Act adopted was in 1965, interpreted requiring political § as all units in designated jurisdictions preclear proposed voting changes.19 contemporaneous This administrative construction persuasive the Act is evidence of the original understanding, especially in light of the extensive role the Attorney General played in drafting the statute and explaining operation its Congress.20 Metropolitan Co., See Ins. Trafficante Life 205, (1972); Tollman, U. S. Udall v. 1, 16 (1965) U. S. In recognition of the Attorney key General’s role in the formulation of Act, past this Court in the given great has interpretations deference to his of it. See Perkins v. Mat- 19The August 6, 1965, May 1, record reflects 1977, that between Attorney 8,100 proposed voting changes General received more than political from parishes register units —other than counties or did not —that voters. While our Brother Stevens’ dissent correct that few of these during years occurred the first existence, post, 8, few of the Act’s at 147n. deny years does not that even these during Attorney General received processed involving proposed submissions changes units that register were not counties any case, and that did In voters. when the Attorney made priority, unambiguously General 5 an administrative he applies indicated his that it jurisdic view to all units in covered suggestion tions. The Attorney dissent’s reading General’s precipitated somehow interpretation this Court’s “creative” of 5 in Attorney Allen overlooks the fact that filed a brief in Allen General urging position adopted. short, Attorney this Court interpretation General’s “contemporaneous” administrative as that See, g., term is used in our Satty, decisions. e. Nashville Gas Co. v. 4 (1977). n. testimony Attorney Katzenbach, Hearings See General On H. R. 6400, supra seq., testimony n. 9 et Katzen Hearings bach in Judiciary, on S. 1564 before the Senate Committee on the Cong., Sess., seq. (1965). 89th 1st 14 et Attorney the

thews, Moreover, 390-394.21 S., at reported to §of 5 was construction longstanding General’s in connection with Department officials Congress by Justice testimony of Assistant Act. 1975 extension of See the on Hearings Pottinger at Stanley General J. Attorney and Con- on Civil R. 939 al. before Subcommittee et H. Judiciary, on the Rights Committee of the House stitutional Hearings); (1975 House (1975) 1st Sess., 94th Cong., Attorney General J. testimony of Assistant exhibits to before the Stanley Pottinger Hearings on S. et al. Rights of the Com- on Constitutional Senate Subcommittee 1st 598-599 Sess., on the 94th Judiciary, Cong., mittee Hearings).22 (1975 Senate 1975 re-enact- legislative history

And the Congress supports the conclusion compellingly ments Congress 1970, Attorney General’s view. shared the as clearly fully interpretation Court’s aware registra- reaching affecting other than those changes voter Act would process plainly contemplated tion R. g., Hearings on H. construed. e. See, continue to be so of the House Committee 4249 et before No. 5 al. Subcommittee 18, 130-131, Judiciary, Sess., 1, 4, on 91st 1st Cong., 83, on 182-184, (1969); Hearings 402-454 147-149, 15A-155, Rights on 818 et before the Subcommittee Constitutional al. 1st 91st Judiciary, Cong., of the Senate Committee Sess., 48, 369-370, 397-398, 426-427, 2d 195-196, Attorney his regulations The General’s also indicate view like territorially: prohibits (a), applies “Section 5 . . . the enforcement §4 any jurisdiction 1¡.(a) any voting change].” covered section [of (1976) (emphasis supplied). CFR 51.1 Attorney apprised General’s statements and exhibits had like covered treated cities Sheffieldas Hearings (discussion from also 1975 563-564 submission See Senate Ala.), (statement Montgomery, Department officialthat and 568 of Justice clarify city make council there was no need to the Act to certain that redistricting covered).

133 history further suggests assumed that just that, §as 5 applies to changes aspects that affect of other voting than registration, so applies it also to entities other than those which conduct voter registration. One principal arguments factual advanced favor of the renewal § 5 was that Anniston, like which, Shef- Ala.— has field, never conducted registration voter failed —had obtain preclearance of highly significant changes. some voting See Joint View of 10 Judiciary Members the Senate Com- Relating mittee to the Extension of Voting Rights Act of Cong. 5521 (1970). Rec. The congressional history is respect even clearer with the 1975 extension, which, course, legislation is the that controls the case at bar. Both the Hearings House and Senate on the bill reflect assumption coverage § was widely unlimited was unchallenged. shared and In addi- tion testimony to the aforementioned of the then Assistant General, special of course has significance, numerous expressed witnesses directly either view, indirectly. See, g., Hearings (in e. 75-76 Senate cov- jurisdictions 5 requires preclearance ered of all changes, objections every have been concerning entered stage of the 112-114 process), (describing preclear- electoral in city ance of changes 463-464 Montgomery, Ala.), (stat- ing applied pre- if Act to Texas, require were 5 would voting changes clearance of of cities and districts, school register (statement by neither of which and 568 voters23), Department clarify no Justice official that there is need to city redistricting Act to make certain council is covered 5); Hearings city (referring House Bessemer, Ala., jurisdiction”) as “covered and 631-632 preclearance process (describing lengthy Charleston, city S. like does not which, Sheffield, conduct C.—a (Vernon Ann., 1967); See Tex. Elec. Code Art. 5.09 5.13a Art. (Vernon 1978). Supp. ,24 significantly, both the House and registration)

voter More Reports preclude the conclusion that Committee Senate territorially. Not do the operate not understood to [designated] applies jurisdic reports §5 state that “\i\n (1975 tions,” 94-295, p. see Senate Rep. No. House (1975) (1975 H. R. Report); Rep. p. No. 94-196, (emphasis one Report) supplied), they also announce that of portions of extension of Act to proposed benefit districts —neither Texas would be Texas cities and that school registered subject of which has voters —would ever 1975 Report 27-28; preclearance requirement. Senate opponents of the Report Finally, House 19-20. none of with that legislation assumption issue common took In applied voting changes to all within covered States. they Rec. deed, apparently Cong. shared view. See this (July 1975) (remarks Stennis) 21, S13072 Sen. (“[a]ny changes] precincts, county districts, . . . made [voting districts, municipalities, or legislatures, school kind of to be submitted to the officers, other ... ha[ve] id., 1975) Attorney General”). also at (July 22, See S13331 (remarks Allen). Sen. might arguments advanced, one think of other

Whatever con background legislative re-enactment before that question Congress clusive of the us. When a approval its of an administrative re-enacts statute voices having interpretation thereof, Congress is treated as other thereby. Court is bound interpretation, that adopted Commissioner, Co. Don 429 U. g., E. Williams S. See, e. v. v. Paper Moody, Albemarle Co. (1977); 576-577 569, Legal H. Hart & A. (1975); Sacks, U. n. 8 405, S. Making Application Basic Problems Process: Corp. (tent. 1958); Zenith Radio v. Hazeltine Law 1404 ed. cf. 7 (1971); 336 n. Girouard United Research, 321, S. v. U. 7-5-30, (1977). 7-5-610 to 7-5-630 §§7-5-10, Code

24 SeeS. C. States, 328 U. 69-70 61, Don Williams Co. E. v. Commissioner, supra, is instructive. As there had here, been a longstanding interpretation administrative of a statute when Congress re-enacted it, legislative there, here, as his tory of the re-enactment agreed showed Congress interpretation, leading this Court to conclude that Con gress had ratified it. at 574-577. While we have S., quarrel no with our Brother imper view that it is Stevens’ missible to draw inferences of approval unexplained from the inaction of Congress, post, Hodgson see 149, citing Lodge Int’l Workers, Assn. Aerospace Mach. & 454 F. (CA7 2d 1971) J., dissenting), prin (Stevens, ciple no applicability has “slumbering this case. Here, army” was twice on each “aroused,” and occasion Voting re-enacted the Rights Act and manifested its view 5§ covers all cities in designated jurisdictions.25

In short, the legislative background enactment and re-enactments compels purposes conclusion as the that, the Act its and terms suggest, § of the covers all Act units within designated jurisdictions like Alabama. Accord- hold that the ingly, we District Court erred in concluding that apply § does not to Sheffield.

Ill Having subject 5,§ decided that Sheffield is must we consider whether properly the District Court concluded that Attorney object the holding General’s failure to to the of the referendum constituted clearance under 5 of the method of electing city government. Only councilmen under new a the unambiguous Our Brother Stevens’ dissent legis contends the history Congress lative 1975 Acts of is not a “rehable guid[e] to what intended in when the it drafted relevant statutory language.” Post, at respect, 149. dissent With the asks and question. wrong gainsaid It cannot are construing, answers the be that we not but the 1965enactment of a 1975 re-enactment. Court District

few are needed demonstrate words point. on also this erred 5§ purpose re-emphasizing at outset

It bears be can voting changes in which procedures establish become they before instrumentality a scrutinized federal a declara- preclearance The basic mechanism effective. for the District tory proceeding the District Court judgment alternative course, establishes an Columbia, Act, but the give Attorney General procedure of submission to the rendering a new state rapid method of “covered State a [s] Education, State Board Allen v. election law enforceable.” Attorney terms, 549. S., 393 U. at Under statute’s change approved having will be treated as General if change such “has been submitted [him] [he] ... sixty days after such objection has within interposed not an “the if been change submission” or has submitted objec- that such Attorney' affirmatively has indicated General Supp. (1970 ed., 42 U. C. 1973c tion will made.” States, Georgia United V) (emphasis supplied). See also that inaction S., provide does While the Act circumstances, Attorney under certain may, General purposes preclearance change, of a constitute federal plainly Attorney if the General would be subverted approved voting change deemed when could ever be to have eval- properly was neither submitted nor fact proposal precisely District Court held by him. But the that. uated record —and the District Court di First, is clear d in its not, find did March otherwise —that Sheffield request pre submit to the 1975, letter, change City’s government. form of clearance of sought approval holding for the the letter Sheffield’s Attorney Moreover, referendum.26 under the General’s own Attorney noting this it bears that the In connection General’s clearly regulations provide proposed that such should set forth the letters being sought. affecting for which clearance See CFR change is (1976). (a) 51.10 51.5, §§ validity

regulation, City the of which is the questioned, could not sought preclearance at that time have change the form of government the the March because, 20, 1975, as letter see stated, 4, supra, n. the details the had change yet been worked (1976).27 out. 28 CFR 51.7 See

And there is no but question that the General did Attorney not intend approve mayor-council to proposed change the to a government and could not be having understood as done so. Attorney When the City General wrote the told he it that had decided not interpose objection holding an to the referendum, he change required warned that the itself prior scrutiny, federal he it of apprised the information it should if supply it wished to attempt preclear the change in government Attorney with rather General, than federal district court. Attorney

Under the circumstances, it is irrelevant General might that, have been notice the referendum if passed, Sheffield would required by have been law to state an adopt at-large system Although of councilmanic elections.28 27 pertinent part, that, provides “regarding change as which approval required may Attorney referendum , ... . . . concerning consider and change prior issue a decision the refer necessary endum adoption ... if all taken.” other action has been quite frequently Since it possible it will not be will the case that determine voting change whether purpose of racial has the or effect change known, discrimination until there all the variables of the question is no regulation but that this means adminis reasonable tering and, such, Georgia States, as is valid. United See U.S. 536-538 Attorney We observe District Court’s conclusion that required by at-large General should known law is have elections were questionable itself First, approval for two reasons. time referendum, it is doubtful have General could charged been knowledge particular provision of of Alabama requiring City’s aLlarge councilmanic elections like Sheffield. The cities 20, 1975, 1973), Code, (Supp. March had not letter cited Tit. Ala. Chapter 3, supra. inwas Art. 4 of 8 of Title n. 37. See preclearance placed request easily have the City the could Attorney before the form of change government in the of the necessary completion e., the by taking all action General —i. (1976), see 28 CFR 51.7 change submitting it, of the before preclearance in its letter that it desired by stating the did (a) not, so 51.10 itself, 51.5, §§ the see change —it having as Sheffield Attorney General, quite properly, treated Accordingly, only of referendum. sought prior clearance the Gen- Attorney that the concluding Court erred in the District the of. adoption approved be understood as having eral has to system of election. at-large an by § is covered

Since we conclude that Sheffield City’s did not clear the Attorney Act and that General councilmen system of adopt government decision to of the District Court at large, judgment are elected Reversed. Blackmun, concurring. Mr. Justice I than much of the find this case to closer Although be I nevertheless opinion indicate, the Court’s would language of I I so feel that whatever join opinion. that do because Attorney District Court’s that General should have known conclusion provision if were to law sustainable we of Alabama would be Attorney charged position should take the extreme General Attorney provisions Second, all local law. even had with notice of regardless that, of 426 there was reason to believe been aware General adopt system statutory City requirement, would election Attorney by passed. the Alabama directly if referendum Both ward 20, 1975, 3, supra, City’s March see n. opinion, General’s 4, supra, return to the 1912 Sheffield would letter, stated that see n. wards, if the four elected each of were system, in which councilmen City Indeed, had pass. reflects that the record were to referendum state law even difficulty persuading the some system. Thus, at-large it seems that adopt an permitted it Attorney General must have known conclusion Court’s District required questionable. at-large law itself were elections contrary argument persuasively have been made on the might 5§ issue a decade the Court’s since then and ago, decisions ante, the re-enactments compel at Congress, 132-135, see the result the Court reaches today.

Mr. Justice in part concurring and concurring Powell, the judgment.

Given reading prior the Court’s of the Act in Voting Rights decisions, Elections, particularly and in Allen State Board of 393 U. Matthews, S. 544 (1969), and Perkins v. 400 U. S. I (1971), concur in In judgment addition, the Court. of I III concur in Part of the Court’s opinion.

Although my constitutionality reservations as to the today’s Act have not I abated,* believe decision correct precedents under this Court’s necessary and in order to effec tuate the purposes of the construed in Allen and Act, as Perkins. In of view these it not sense purposes does make preclearance requirement political charged limit the units ante, with voter As the registration. majority observes, 124, such a construction of could the statute enable covered States or political subdivisions allow local entities that do conduct registration responsibility chang voter to assume for process. political the electoral A or sub ing covered State thereby division through could achieve its instrumentalities preclearance. what could not do itself without Elections, Allen v. State Board (Black, J., 544, *See U. S. (1969); Georgia States, v. United 411 dissenting) (Powell, J., dissenting). My relate not to the commendable reservations purpose coverage of the Act but selective of certain its States procedure. to the preclearance intrusive

I agree Mr. Justice Stevens says dissent, with much of but what Allen willing step unless Court it has progeny to overrule its —a taking refrained from foreshadowing those as if view decisions —I compelling my judgment today. Court’s I record total nevertheless Mr. agreement Justice Stevens’ preclearance with Act’s view requirement, post, at 141. construction agree

I a more sensible with the Court purpose, is to accord with statute’s view and in changes in the governmental responsible treat units political sub- process electoral within a State subdivision. political equivalent division as the the State Congress’ understanding, This construction also accords designation Court, the District cited subdivisions. imply designation would its sub- including such a the reason situation, there- they (c) (2) in 14 is not that are defined divisions eligibility Their separately. might designated fore have been significance the is without designation apart from State for politi- the designated. Rather, entire has been once the State they juris- within the cal subdivisions are covered because its delegated be might designated unit and diction of voting. affecting authority or administer laws to enact city unit like the governmental is true of a the same Because within “political subdivision” is not a of Sheffield is too agree I it (c)(2), with the Court meaning §of requirements. comply must with its subject 5 and Chief Justice with whom Stevens, Justice Mr. Mr. Burger Rehnquist dissenting. join, Mr. Justice whether by this case is presented principal question by Voting 5 of the is covered city Sheffield, Ala., be could answered question If that 1965.1 Rights Act it purposes, Act’s broad remedial solely by reference to as of the statute But on basis easy an one. might be simple as the Court nearly is not question as written, First, separate inquiries: I two requires believe it implies. within “political subdivision” city of is a Sheffield whether the question is even if that second, 5;§of meaning city by should action whether negative, answered correctly in Part III of the question is, believe, I answered The second opinion. Court’s

be regarded as action of the State within meaning section.

I Briefly stated, provides 5§ that whenever a a political subdivision, designated pursuant 4,§ seeks to a change voting practice, it must obtain clearance change from either the United States District Court District of Columbia or the United “preclearance” States.2 This so-called requirement is one of the most extraordinary provisions remedial in an Act noted for its broad remedies. Even the Department of Justice has described it departure as “substantial ordinary . . . from concepts our system”;3 federal its encroachment state sovereignty significant and undeniable. The section must, therefore, read interpreted starting As care. it is point, applies clear that actions taken two> types units —States or subdivisions. Alabama is

Since 4,§ State under “each and every political subdivision within that State” covered § 5. R. Rep. See H. No. 89th Cong., Sess., 1st not, however, This does city mean that the Shef- “political a field is subdivision” of by Alabama 5.§ covered For specifically “political the Act defines subdivision,” entity does not arguably definition even include an such as Sheffield. 14 (c) (2) provides:

Section of the Act 'political “The term any county subdivision’ shall mean except registration or that where for is parish, not ante, 112-113, n. 1. See 3Hearings on 407 et al. before the Subcommittee on S. Constitutional Rights Judiciary, Cong., on the the Senate Committee 94th 1st Sess., Stanley (1975 Hearings) (testimony Pottinger, Senate J. Assistant General, Rights Division). Civil See South Carolina also Katzenbach, J., concurring (Black, U. S. dissenting); Georgia States, dissenting). 411 U. J., v. United 545 (Powell, county or parish, supervision of a under

conducted State a subdivision any other shall include the term voting.” for registration conducts conduct not it does county parish, or a not a is Sheffield “political it is not a voting. Consequently, registration subdivision.” that the demonstrates (c) (2) history §of legislative The pur- specific defined for the was “political subdivision” term term Act. Because limiting coverage pose of drafted, Senator originally in the bill as had been defined read to might recognized that Ervin, among others, allay It units. governmental encompass local minor, Act. in the included definition was concern that this of the Vot- early This version ERVIN. [an “Senator would this only applies State, but Rights ing Act] in district the State .... little election apply I do not believe KATZENBACH. “Attorney General the term to what question is a as There so, Senator. I taken the view have subdivision’ means. 'political I we are body state it here that and would the other people registered, in which are area talking about the every I State registering. believe appropriate unit refers “political suggests that the term subdivision” Court Ante, n. this at 128 15. But unit. and not to geographic area plain language of by the statute. Section repudiated argument reads: . . shall enact seek subdivision . 'a State “Whenever qualification (Emphasis added.) any voting

administer by political units, rather than administered enacted and laws Since necessarily meaning as it has the former territories, the term geographic section. used language in other confirmed “[S]uch This conclusion is §5: Provided, qualifica- may an action . . . That such institute or subdivision legal officer may . if . the chief . . . . submitted . . be enforced . tion . State or . . .” of such subdivision Geo- official appropriate other employ legal officers; but institute actions or do graphic territories political do. units

that comes provisions within the this, talking we are about no area smaller than county a or parish.

“Senator you ERVIN. Do you think had better your amend bill to provide, so in North because Carolina, every municipality is subdivision of State, even every sanitary district a subdivision of the State. every Also election district is a subdivision the State, every school district . every special . . bond, school-bond, district ais subdivision of the State.

“Attorney General I think KATZENBACH. might be done define subdivision here in the bill in that I way, Senator. That is what intended.” Hearings on S. before the Senate on the Committee Judiciary, 89th (1965 Cong., Sess., 1st Senate (1965) Hearings). Hearings

See also on H. R. before Subcommittee No. 5 House Committee 89th 1st Judiciary, Cong., (cid:127) 21 (1965) (1965 Sess., House Hearings).

Later, during the debate on Voting Act, Senate Rights Senator Ervin referred to the dialogue above General Katzenbach and without stated, contradiction, “political the term subdivision” had been defined to avoid a construction jurisdiction upon Act that “confer would the Federal Government every intervene in ward every city and town covered Ill Cong. the bill.” Rec. 9270 Report The Senate on the Voting Rights Act made point equally bluntly: the same

“This definition makes clear the term ‘political encompass is not intended subdivision’ precincts, elec- districts, they tion or other similar units when within which county supervises registration or parish Rep. voting.” 162, pt. No. 89th Cong., Sess., 1st .5 history explains (c) (2) Ignoring legislative why Act, Court instead focuses on a inserted statement Senator may be in the ambiguities there other whatever short, not one of is “political subdivision” definition Act, reach clearly to limit intended them. It was cities, Sheffield, such as excludes clearly the definition Act, register not voters. that do

II does unit that whether a question is remaining “State,” as regarded as the may be register voters contrary legislative no If 5. there were § is used term of entities the action to treat history, might it be reasonable of a covered jurisdiction Sheffield, are within the such as action just governmental such as action,” as State, “state sense. in a constitutional as state action regarded would be would of the word “State” interpretation an However, such purely kind of local the same statute to extend the reach defining by to exclude intended Congress matters “political term subdivision.” Ervin, quoted of Senator apparent from the comments

As the Act whether congressional concern over supra, there was county level. units below governmental extend to would specifically and was repeatedly expressed concern was That Court as the (c)(2). Unquestionably, in §14 addressed protects ante, section small 128-129, that recognizes, at being separately from boards, such as school units, which motivated §4(b). The concerns coverage under equally Indeed, §to 5.6 (b) apply from 4§ this exclusion Ante, 130-131. This to cities. Talmadge referring application 5’s to § however, Georgia, since statement, support for the Court’s view offers little registration cities. State, have Talmadge’s does voter Senator home Code 34A-501 Ga. apply throughout (a)4 was intended to that since The Court reasons requirement have the same designated State, preclearance must 5’s First, analysis reasons. does for three unpersuasive This reach. statutory language weight differences in give to the clear sufficient supra. (a) wanted When between See n. legislative history provides a perfectly logical explanation of why Congress deliberately limited the reach of as 5,§ well as 4 (b), “political subdivisions,” as defined the Act. preclearance

First, a requirement governmental limited to engaged units in the registration process would be in accord with the fact that was principally Act concerned with literacy tests and other devices which being were used to prevent black citizens registering from Attorney to vote. As General Katzenbach repeatedly emphasized, really “bill is aimed at getting people registered.” See 1965 House Hear- ings 21.7

term “State” to geographic have a reach, clearly capable express- ing intent, (a). that as it did in 4 Its failure to do so in 5 must be § some significance, especially accorded coupled 14(c) (2)’s when with § general purpose of excluding political small units from the Act’s reach. Second, adequately it does not assess the reason for the inclusion (c) (2). “political 14 definition of Third, subdivision.” has Court already recognized that provide remedy every was not intended to for wrong committed in a in voting. connection “It is irrelevant coverage formula excludes certain localities employ voting which do not tests and devices but for which there is evi- voting dence discrimination other means. had learned widespread persistent in voting during years discrimination recent typically devices, has entailed the misuse of tests and and this was the evil for which the specifically designed. new remedies were At the same time, through (a), (b) Act, Congress strengthened and 13 of the §§ existing remedies country. discrimination other areas of the Legislation phases need problem way, not deal with all of a in the same long so as the practical experience.” distinctions drawn have some basis in Katzenbach, S., South Carolina 330-331. following dialogue is illustrative: “The ‘political The bill also CHAIRMAN. refers to subdivisions.’ How go ? far down scale does that I “Mr. KATZENBACH. 'political believe that the term subdivision’ really used in this bill . . is aimed at getting people registered. . example, “The CHAIRMAN. For in New York. ... I take it that an be election district would deemed a subdivision? possible,

“Mr. I KATZENBACH. think that Mr. Chairman, but frankly, you registration accomplished are more familiar with how change an election review of Second, judicial the Act limits sitting in Dis- District Court three-judge under to a frequently opponents trict of Columbia. The it was arguing outrage limitation, their at this expressed miles in 3,000 or 1,000 or people unfair to make “250 travel g., e. See, gain justice.” to a court of order to access Cong. Rec. Ervin); Hearings (remarks of Sen. Senate of 5 Proponents Ellender) (remarks Sen. it would not provision ground on the justified the body comparable State, county, difficult unusual g., e. See, D. C. arguments Washington, to make its have Katzen- (testimony Hearing Senate floor the Senate bach). comments Senator Javits' argument: line of typical bill is unfair it cannot be claimed that “Finally, we because the Federal Government litigants other than pursue are unable to litigants who dealing are with litigants who dealing with legal remedy. are not We appear proceedings or legal difficult might find travel subdivi dealing political with expensive. ances We county attorneys or State which have States, sions and accomplished accomplished it or not I know how I am. is York than New in Alabama. possible unit in political would be lowest CHAIRMAN. What “The scale? registration done is the area in What “Mr. KATZENBACH. that, House Chairman.” I am not familiar with Mr. York? New Hearings 21. Board Allen testimony the Court in referred to was

Similar Elections, 393 U. 564. gerrymander- broadly apply Act to construed the Allen The fact that techniques weight of some votes cannot which “dilute” the ing and other concern of the registration was the central the fact that voter obscure Indeed, interpretation of the creative passed Allen’s when it was application. only prospective given it was so dramatic statute id., See at 572.

attorneys general who come Washington, C., D. many things, they and would not be required to come to Washington merely participate in litigation might arise under the bill.” 111 Cong. Rec. 10363 Obviously, this argument same does not apply to most town- ships, school and boards, the numerous other small, local units political involved in the process. Whether or not would be “fair” to make political these smaller argue units their cases only in Washington, D. theC., and supporters drafters Act gave assurances that 5§ was not so A intended. broad definition of nullify “State” would those just assurances as surely as a interpretation loose of “political subdivision.” logistical

Finally, the and problems administrative inherent in reviewing all changes of all strongly units suggest placed limits on the preclearance requirement. Statistics show that the staff General's requests now processing for voting changes rate 1,000 per over year,8 this rate is no means indicative of the number of submissions if involved all covered States fully units complied the preclearance requirement, interpreted by as the Attorney Fur- General.9 thermore, under the each request upon statute be passed must days large within of its rapid submission. This volume 6,400 requests approximately voting change While have been submitted passed, evenly the Act since the submissions have not been divided among years of the Act’s Approximately 5,800 existence. of the 6,400 changes submitted were made from 1971 on. See Senate 597; Hearings 8,100 figure by Jurisdictional Statement 13-14. The cited ante, Court, 19, supra, voting changes at 131 n. refers to the number of included within the submissions. Attorney Pottinger Assistant General testified in 1975 that “Section fully implemented.” yet Hearings fact, has to be 1975 Senate 583. In Attorney help has to the FBI investigations General had ask to conduct any changes determine whether local have authorities made in procedures not that are reflected in state statutes. Ibid. Allen.10 in of this Court’s decision part, in product,

of work is a to believe Allen, certainly reasonable it is apart But even from Attor- on the having strict limit placed a time Congress, deliberately also submissions, ney consideration General’s submis- importance number and placed a on the limit restricting achieved This result was sions themselves.11 themselves the States 5 to enactments either the reach of 14 (c)(2). subdivisions, by § political as defined their byAct construction “contemporaneous” Neither the of 5§ subsequent amendments Attorney nor the General validity of this my undermine the by Congress, judgment, “Attorney The asserts that reading of the section. Court 1965, interpreted adopted in the Act was has, since General jurisdictions units in requiring all § as Ante, The at 131. changes.” proposed voting preclear contrary. historical evidence to the unambiguous regulations adopt did Department of Justice September until preclearance provisions 5’s implementing § nearly two passage of the years six after the Beg. 18186; Fed. years this Court’s decision Allen. after States, 411 And it was United 526. Georgia v. see attempted Department even Allen that the until the decision 1969, only Allen had submitted three States Prior to the decision approval, for a total of 323 any voting changes Attorney Id., five-year period. at 597. There was dramatic during a submissions Ibid. 1,118. from leap between 1970 and in submissions Matthews, Perkins that Allen impact figures These reveal the obvious implementation Attorney 379, have had on the General’s 400 U. S. changes proce insignificance in voting The sheer number today’s decision, must, be submitted units that under dures in local may country’s legal suggest have highest officer to the requirement’s preclearance 5 in order to insure the limited the reach solemnity. Paradoxically, effort eliminate Court’s effectiveness and require may preclearance “gaps” in the reduce the statute remedial provision. As would trivial, though burdensome, to a administrative ment routinely accepted expected, almost all submissions are Hearings 582. See 1975 Senate General.

149 develop standards procedures enforcing § 5. See Hearings 1975 Senate 537 (testimony Attorney of Assistant General J. Stanley Pottinger). In there no “con- short, temporaneous” construction of the Attorney Gen- may eral. It have been reasonable for General, in promulgating regulations after Allen decision, have assumed that, since the section changes now covered all and not simply registration all units and not changes, simply political subdivisions were also But covered. assumption no light sheds on Congress’ passing intention in the Act in 1965. my in

Nor, judgment, are the subsequent amendments inAct 1975 Congress reliable guides what in intended 1965 when statutory it drafted lan the relevant guage. The 1970 and 1975 extensions of did not the Act change operative language alter definition § or “political term I suggested subdivision.” a few As years ago, interpretation of provision contro “[a]n [a] integrated versial and . fairly statute . predicated . cannot on unexplained inaction Congresses subsequent different years.” Hodgson Lodge 851, Int’l Assn. & Aero Mach. Workers, space 2d 545, (CA7 1971) F. (dissenting opinion). response dissenting opinion, suggested to this has Court that in (c)

focusing searching of 14 language through on the and in the 1965 legislative history, sought wrong question I have an answer to the because construing we are Ante, rather than the Act. n. question However, whether the Act was “re-enacted” in 1975 significance. beyond technical in operation Section would have continued 1975 for States such as Alabama even without extension. See Tunney, Cong. comments Senator More Rec. importantly, Congress change the 1975 made no in the definition of “political aspect subdivision” and no one called its attention to today. question decided issue I have tried answer is what actually accomplish by intended to its definition of the term “political was, That perhaps, product subdivision.” definition of a reaches Court result the persuaded I sum, am of the intent the actual reflection faithful today is not a respectfully I therefore the statute. enacted Congress dissent. may statutory language resulting compromise,

legislative purposes of reading full remedial the Court's “crippling” to legislative respect product of obligation an But we have statute. wholeheartedly endorse. policy decisions we well as compromise as

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm'rs

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 6, 1978

Citation: 435 U.S. 110

Docket Number: 76-1662

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS