Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

City of Rome v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawVoting Rights ActFifteenth AmendmentFederalismElection LawVoting Rights ActSection 5Section 4(a)

Facts

Rome, Georgia, a municipality within covered jurisdiction Georgia, changed its election system in 1966 by reducing wards, requiring at-large elections to numbered posts, imposing majority-vote and runoff requirements, staggering terms, and adding a residency requirement for Board of Education members. Rome also made 60 annexations between 1964 and 1975. It failed to seek preclearance for those changes when made, and after later submission the Attorney General objected to several election changes and 13 annexations on the ground that they would dilute Negro voting strength in a city with a white majority and racial bloc voting. The District Court found no discriminatory purpose but found discriminatory effect and upheld the Attorney General's refusal to preclear.

Issue

Whether § 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to Rome's election changes and annexations, whether Rome could independently bail out from the Act's coverage, and whether Congress constitutionally may forbid voting changes that are discriminatory in effect though not shown to be enacted with discriminatory purpose. Also at issue was whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that Rome failed to prove the challenged changes lacked discriminatory effect.

Rule

Under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a covered jurisdiction must obtain preclearance for post-1964 voting changes, and preclearance is unavailable unless the jurisdiction proves the change lacks both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect. A municipality in a covered State may not independently use § 4(a)'s bailout procedure unless the coverage determinations were made with respect to that political subdivision as a separate unit. Congress may, pursuant to § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibit voting practices with discriminatory effect as an appropriate means of enforcing the Amendment, even assuming § 1 reaches only intentional discrimination.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Fairmont, Alabama, lies within a State covered by the Voting Rights Act. Fairmont adopts numbered posts and a majority-vote runoff for its at-large city council elections, then seeks preclearance and proves the changes were adopted for administrative convenience rather than racial animus, but the evidence shows the changes would likely reduce minority voters' ability to elect preferred candidates because voting is sharply polarized by race.

Should preclearance be granted?

Explanation. Section 5 preclearance is unavailable unless the submitting jurisdiction proves that the voting change lacks both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect. The majority held that Congress may constitutionally bar voting changes with discriminatory effect alone as an appropriate means of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment. Thus, even absent bad motive, Fairmont would not be entitled to preclearance if the change would dilute minority voting strength.