Judicial Elections Now Covered Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Judicial Elections Now Covered Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Introduction

Chisom et al. v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al., 501 U.S. 380 (1991), represents a significant milestone in the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The case addressed whether judicial elections fall within the protective scope of Section 2 of the VRA, which aims to prevent voting practices that dilute minority voting strength. The plaintiffs, a class of approximately 135,000 black registered voters in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, challenged the method of electing justices to the Louisiana Supreme Court, arguing that it violated their voting rights under Section 2 by diluting their electoral influence.

Summary of the Judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court held that judicial elections are indeed covered by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982. The Court reversed the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that judicial elections were excluded from Section 2 protections because judges are not "representatives" in the traditional sense. The Supreme Court found that the term "representatives" in Section 2 is broad enough to include elected judges, thereby ensuring that discriminatory practices in judicial elections can be challenged under the VRA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents to support its decision:

  • MOBILE v. BOLDEN (1980): This case initially held that judicial elections did not fall under Section 2 of the VRA, positing that judges are not "representatives" of the electorate.
  • WHITE v. REGESTER (1973): Established the two-part test for Section 2 claims, focusing on opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of one's choice.
  • WHITCOMB v. CHAVIS (1971): Further elaborated on the burden of proof required under Section 2, emphasizing the interlinkage of participation and representation.
  • League of United Latin American Citizens Council No. 444 v. Clements (1990): The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision that judicial elections were excluded from Section 2 protections, which the Supreme Court ultimately overturned.

These precedents collectively shaped the Court's understanding of the scope and application of Section 2, particularly concerning non-legislative elections such as those for judicial positions.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of the term "representatives of their choice" within Section 2(b) of the VRA. The Court argued that:

  • The term "representatives" is not limited to legislative or executive officials but extends to any officials elected by popular vote, including judges.
  • The legislative history of the 1982 amendment aimed to broaden the protection of the VRA, not to limit it. If Congress intended to exclude judicial elections, it would have explicitly stated so.
  • The "results test" introduced by the 1982 amendment applies uniformly to all elections covered under Section 2, ensuring that discriminatory practices that dilute minority voting strength are actionable regardless of the office at stake.
  • Excluding judicial elections would create inconsistencies, especially since Section 5 of the VRA (preclearance provision) already covers judicial elections, making it impractical to deny simultaneous protection under Section 2.

The Court concluded that the structure and purpose of Section 2 do not support excluding judicial elections, thereby affirming that practices diluting minority voting power in such elections can be challenged under the VRA.

Impact

This landmark decision has profound implications for voting rights and judicial elections:

  • Enhanced Protections for Minority Voters: Minority groups now have a clearer avenue to challenge electoral practices in judicial elections that may dilute their voting power.
  • Uniform Application of the Results Test: By affirming that the results test applies to all elections covered under Section 2, the ruling ensures consistency in addressing discrimination across various types of elections.
  • Judicial Accountability: Elected judges are subject to the same anti-discrimination scrutiny as other public officials, promoting greater accountability and fairness in the judiciary.
  • Future Litigation: The decision paves the way for future cases to use Section 2 to challenge discriminatory practices in non-legislative elections, broadening the scope of the VRA's enforcement.

Overall, the ruling strengthens the VRA's intent to eliminate racial discrimination in all facets of voting, ensuring that minority voters have equal opportunity to influence all areas of public office, including the judiciary.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Vote Dilution

Vote Dilution refers to electoral practices that diminish the voting power of a particular group, often based on race or color. This can occur through methods like gerrymandering, where district lines are drawn to spread minority voters thinly across multiple districts, preventing them from achieving a majority in any single district.

Results Test

The Results Test is a legal standard introduced in the 1982 amendment to Section 2 of the VRA. It allows plaintiffs to prove discrimination by demonstrating that, regardless of intent, the voting practices result in the denial or abridgment of voting rights for a protected class. Unlike prior standards, it does not require proof of discriminatory intent.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race or color. It applies to a wide range of electoral processes, ensuring that all eligible voters have equal opportunities to participate in elections and to elect representatives of their choice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Chisom et al. v. Roemer unequivocally extends the protective reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to judicial elections. By including elected judges within the scope of "representatives," the Court reinforces the VRA's commitment to eliminating vote dilution and ensuring that minority voters have an equal opportunity to influence all branches of government. This ruling not only upholds the spirit of the VRA but also sets a precedent for future challenges against discriminatory voting practices in various types of elections, thereby strengthening the foundations of democratic representation in the United States.

Case Details

Year: 1991
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

John Paul StevensAntonin ScaliaAnthony McLeod Kennedy

Attorney(S)

Solicitor General Starr argued the cause for the United States in No. 90-1032. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Dunne, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Clegg, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Jessica Dunsay Silver, and Mark L. Gross. Pamela S. Karlan argued the cause for petitioners in No. 90-757. With her on the briefs were Julius LeVonne Chambers, Charles Stephens Ralston, Dayna L. Cunningham Ronald L. Wilson, C. Lani Guinier, William P. Quigley Roy Rodney, Jr. Robert G. Pugh argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana, M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Moise W. Dennery, and A.R. Christovich, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Robert G. Pugh, Jr. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Frank R. Parker, Robert B. McDuff, Brenda Wright, Robert F. Mullen, David S. Tatel, Norman Redlich, Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley, Kathleen L. Wilde, Mary Wyckoff, Samuel Rabinove, Richard T. Foltin, Antonia Hernandez, and Judith Sanders-Castro; for Supreme Court Justice for Orleans, Inc., by M. David Gelfand, Terry E. Allbritton, John S. Keller, and Ira J. Middleberg; and for Darleen M. Jacobs, by Ms. Jacobs, pro se, and Brian C. Beckwith. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of George by Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Carol Atha Cosgrove, Assistant Attorney General, and David F. Walbert; for the Pacific Page 383 Legal Foundation by Ronald A. Zumbrun and Anthony T. Caso; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar. Edwin F. Hendricks filed a brief for the American Judication Society as amicus curiae.

Comments