Chisom et al. v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
501 U.S. 380 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982 to prohibit voting practices that have a discriminatory result, applies to state judicial elections.
Facts:
- The Louisiana Supreme Court consists of seven justices, five elected from single-member districts and two elected from a single multi-member district known as the First Supreme Court District.
- The First Supreme Court District is comprised of four parishes: Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, and Jefferson.
- Orleans Parish contains roughly half the population and registered voters of the First District, and its registered voters are majority-black.
- The other three parishes in the First District combined have a registered voter population that is majority-white.
- A group of black registered voters in Orleans Parish, led by Chisom, alleged that the at-large, multi-member system for electing two justices from the First District impermissibly dilutes their voting strength.
- At the time of the lawsuit, no black person had ever been elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Procedural Posture:
- Chisom and a class of black voters sued the Governor of Louisiana in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to judicial elections.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that judicial elections are covered by Section 2.
- On remand, following a trial, the District Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a Section 2 violation.
- While an appeal of that decision was pending, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc in a separate case (LULAC v. Clements), held that vote dilution claims under Section 2 do not apply to judicial elections.
- Based on its en banc LULAC ruling, the Fifth Circuit panel in the Chisom case then directed the District Court to dismiss the complaint.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, which forbids any voting practice that 'results in a denial or abridgement of the right...to vote on account of race or color,' apply to the election of state court judges?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to state judicial elections. The 1982 amendment was intended to broaden the Act's protections, not withdraw coverage from an entire category of elections. The term 'representatives' in § 2(b) is best read to describe the winners of popular elections, which includes elected judges. Louisiana's choice to select its judges through popular elections subjects those elections to the same statutory protections against vote dilution as elections for legislative or executive officials. Furthermore, it would be an anomalous result for Section 5 of the Act (which governs preclearance of new voting rules) to apply to judicial elections while Section 2 (which governs existing rules) did not.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. Section 2's prohibition on vote dilution, which turns on the opportunity 'to elect representatives of their choice,' does not extend to judicial elections. The ordinary meaning of the word 'representatives' does not include judges, who are meant to represent the law rather than the popular will of constituents. Congress specifically chose the word 'representatives' over the broader term 'candidates,' which it used elsewhere in the Act, indicating a deliberate limitation. Vote dilution as a concept is historically and logically tied to the 'one person, one vote' principle, which this Court has held does not apply to judicial elections, making the application of a dilution analysis to judicial elections a standardless inquiry.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. Joining Justice Scalia's dissent in full, the dissent emphasizes that the question is one of statutory construction. The decision does not address the separate constitutional validity of applying Section 2, as interpreted by the Court, to judicial elections.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the impact of the Voting Rights Act by applying the powerful 'results test' of Section 2 to judicial elections. It rejected a formalistic distinction between judges and other elected officials, focusing instead on the reality of electoral politics in states that choose to elect their judiciary. The ruling opened the door for a wave of litigation challenging at-large and multi-member judicial election systems across the country, leading to the creation of more single-member, majority-minority judicial sub-districts. The case affirmed the broad, remedial purpose of the Voting Rights Act, prioritizing its anti-discrimination goals over states' arguments about the unique, non-representative nature of the judicial office.
