|
City of
Rome (GA) v. United States (1980)
Author: Bram
Relevant
Facts:
The Voting
Rights Act of 1965 requires covered jurisdictions to submit electoral changes
made after November 1964 for preclearance either to the Department of Justice or
to the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Under the Act,
preclearance is granted only if the jurisdiction proves the absence of both
discriminatory intent and effect. (Rome's
The city, in
efforts to change the manner in which it elected city officials, persuaded the
District Court that a variety of electoral changes had not been discriminatorily
motivated. DOJ rejected Rome's changes not b/c of its discriminatory nature,
but the process in which black officials could be elected would be
discriminatory in effect.
Issue:
Under constitutional law, may the Court uphold Congressional legislation which
blocks a city's electoral process when the process is not discriminatory on its
face?
Holding:
Yes. The Act's ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect is an
appropriate method of promoting the purposes of the 15th Amendment, even if it
is assumed that section one of the Amendment prohibits only intentional
discrimination in voting.
Court's
Rationale/Reasoning:
Even though the
Court's Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence teaches that the Clause prohibits
only purposeful discrimination, not actions with discriminatory effects, the
Court found Congress to have been acting within its Section 2, 15th Amendment
powers. The Court said it would defer to the judgment of Congress that because
of past "ingenious defiance" of the right of black voters, it might be necessary
to focus on discriminatory effects to uphold "the spirit" of the 15th Amendment.
The Court found that under
section 2 of the 15th Congress may prohibit practices that in and of themselves
do not violate section 1 of the Amendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking
racial discrimination in voting are appropriate.
Rule:
(15th Amendment, section 1) The right of citizens of the U.S. To vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.
(15th
Amendment, section 2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
Important
Dicta:
Aside from the decision, important info...
Dissenting:
Justice Rehnquist,
in his dissent, contended that the DOJ's action was not a valid exercise of
Congress's Section 2 remedial powers.
Concurring:
N/A.
|