Introduction

In the landmark case Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama, Appellant v. Yvonne Kennedy et al., the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), specifically Section 5. This case arose from a dispute over the method of filling midterm vacancies on the Mobile County Commission in Alabama, a covered jurisdiction under the VRA. The central issue was whether the reinstatement of gubernatorial appointments, after a judicial nullification of a special election provision, constituted a "change" in voting practices that required preclearance under Section 5 of the VRA.

The parties involved were Governor Bob Riley of Alabama, who sought to appoint Juan Chastang to the Mobile County Commission, and Yvonne Kennedy along with other plaintiffs, who challenged this appointment on the grounds that it violated the VRA's preclearance requirements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the district court's decision, which was appealed by Governor Riley, was timely and properly brought before the Supreme Court. The Court further concluded that the 1985 Act, which had temporarily shifted the method of filling commissions to special elections, was never "in force or effect" under the VRA because it was promptly challenged and invalidated by the Alabama Supreme Court. Consequently, reinstating the prior practice of gubernatorial appointments did not constitute a "change" requiring preclearance under Section 5 of the VRA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court examined several precedents to interpret the term "in force or effect" under Section 5 of the VRA. Key cases included:

• PERKINS v. MATTHEWS (1971): Determined that practices actually implemented were considered "in force or effect" regardless of state law requirements.
• City of LOCKHART v. UNITED STATES (1983): Reinforced that the practical implementation of a practice, rather than its legality under state law, determined its status under the VRA.
• YOUNG v. FORDICE (1997): Clarified that temporary misapplications of state law, which were promptly abandoned, do not constitute being "in force or effect."
• MULLANEY v. WILBUR (1975): Highlighted the role of state supreme courts as the ultimate interpreters of state law.
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel (1976): Established that orders resolving liability without addressing plaintiff's relief requests are not final judgments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on establishing the appropriate "baseline" practice against which any changes would be measured. The baseline is defined as the most recent practice that was both precleared and in "force or effect." In this case, the 1985 Act, which introduced special elections, was ultimately invalidated by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Court concluded that because the Act was invalidated before it could be consistently enforced, it was never "in force or effect" under the VRA. Therefore, reverting to the pre-1985 practice of gubernatorial appointments did not represent a new change but a reinstatement of the original baseline practice.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting state supreme courts' determinations regarding state law, aligning with the principle that state courts are the final interpreters of state statutes. The Court also noted that lower state courts' errors should not influence the determination of what is considered "in force or effect" under the VRA.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving Section 5 of the VRA. It clarifies that reverting to previously established voting practices, provided they were part of the original baseline, does not require preclearance. However, this holding is narrow and contingent upon the practice never having been "in force or effect" post-enactment of supplemental legislation. States must still seek preclearance for any deviations from the established baseline that may affect voting rights, ensuring that changes are not retrogressive and do not dilute minorities' voting power.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preclearance: A protection under the VRA requiring certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before making changes to voting laws or practices.

Covered Jurisdiction: A state or territory that was subject to Section 5's preclearance requirements due to a history of voting discrimination.

Baseline Practice: The most recent voting procedure that was both precleared and actively implemented, serving as the standard against which any new changes are measured.

'In Force or Effect': A term under the VRA referring to voting practices that are currently active and implemented, irrespective of their legality under state law, unless deemed temporary misapplications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Bob RILEY v. KENNEDY redefines the interpretation of "change" under Section 5 of the VRA, underscoring the necessity of distinguishing between genuine changes and the reinstatement of original practices. By determining that the 1985 Act was never "in force or effect," the Court prevented Alabama from necessitating preclearance for actions that merely restored existing, non-discriminatory practices. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to baseline practices and ensures that any alterations to voting procedures undergo rigorous federal scrutiny to protect against potential disenfranchisement of minority voters.