City of Rome v. United States
446 U.S. 156 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress may prohibit electoral practices that are discriminatory in effect in jurisdictions with a history of purposeful discrimination, even if the practices are not themselves motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
Facts:
- The City of Rome, Georgia, had a population that was 76.6% white and 23.4% Black.
- Prior to 1966, Rome's charter provided for a nine-member City Commission elected at-large by plurality vote, with each commissioner residing in one of nine wards.
- In 1966, the Georgia legislature amended Rome's charter, changing the electoral system to require a majority vote with runoffs, creating numbered posts for candidates, and staggering terms.
- The 1966 amendments also expanded the Board of Education and applied similar majority-vote, numbered-post, and residency requirements to its elections.
- Between November 1, 1964, and February 10, 1975, the City of Rome completed 60 annexations of territory.
- Rome failed to seek preclearance for the 1966 electoral changes or the annexations as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under which Georgia was a covered jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture:
- After being prompted by the U.S. Attorney General in 1974, the City of Rome submitted its 1966 electoral changes and 60 annexations for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- The Attorney General refused to preclear the majority-vote, numbered-post, and staggered-term provisions, as well as 13 of the 60 annexations, on the grounds they had a discriminatory effect.
- The City of Rome and two of its officials filed a declaratory judgment action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court found the electoral changes and annexations had a discriminatory effect, rejected Rome's constitutional challenges to the Act, and granted summary judgment for the United States.
- The City of Rome appealed the District Court's judgment directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits covered jurisdictions from implementing voting changes with a discriminatory effect without proof of discriminatory purpose, exceed Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. The Voting Rights Act's prohibition on electoral changes that have a discriminatory effect is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress's authority under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment is as broad as its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court held that Congress can use any rational means to prohibit racial discrimination in voting. It may prohibit state action that, while not itself violating Section 1 of the Amendment, perpetuates the effects of past discrimination. Congress could rationally conclude that in jurisdictions with a history of intentional discrimination, banning changes with a discriminatory impact is an effective method of preventing future purposeful discrimination. Furthermore, principles of federalism articulated in National League of Cities v. Usery do not limit Congress's power to enforce the Civil War Amendments, which were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, I join the Court's opinion, but write to clarify the effect of upholding the district court's decision regarding the annexations. While the finding was not clearly erroneous, it creates an anomaly where residents of annexed areas can vote for the Board of Education but not the City Commission. However, this can be remedied. The city could secure preclearance for the annexations by modifying its electoral system to eliminate pre-existing discriminatory features, such as by coupling at-large elections with unnumbered posts to allow for effective single-shot voting by the minority community, consistent with the precedent in City of Richmond v. United States.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The constitutionality of applying the Voting Rights Act to the City of Rome does not depend on Rome's own history of discrimination. Congress prescribed a statewide remedy for discriminatory practices that were widespread within Georgia. Because Congress has the constitutional power to regulate voting practices in the entire state, and since the state as a whole has not qualified for a bailout, the remedy may be applied to every political unit within the state, including the City of Rome, regardless of its individual record of compliance. The statute plainly does not allow for political subdivisions of a covered state to bail out on their own.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
Yes. The Court's interpretation creates an irrational inconsistency with United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala. If a political subdivision like Rome is considered part of the 'State' for the burdens of preclearance, it should also be considered part of the 'State' for the benefits of the 'bailout' provision. By denying Rome the ability to bail out despite the District Court's finding that it has not discriminated for 17 years, the Act becomes unconstitutional as applied. The preclearance requirement is an extraordinary intrusion on state and local governments that is only justified as a remedial measure; when there is no longer any harm to remedy in a specific locality, continuing the federal oversight exceeds Congress's Fifteenth Amendment authority.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. This decision allows Congress to prohibit conduct that the Court, in City of Mobile v. Bolden, held does not violate the Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment's enforcement power is remedial and allows Congress to prevent or remedy constitutional violations, which require a finding of discriminatory purpose. Because the District Court found Rome's actions were not purposefully discriminatory, there is no constitutional wrong to remedy. By prohibiting conduct based solely on its discriminatory effect, Congress is not 'enforcing' the Amendment but is effectively amending the Constitution and defining new substantive rights, which is a power reserved for the judiciary. This is an abdication of the Court's duty to interpret the Constitution.
Analysis:
This case solidified the broad scope of congressional power to enforce the Civil War Amendments. It affirmed that Congress may enact prophylactic legislation that outlaws practices with a discriminatory effect to prevent purposeful discrimination, even if the Constitution itself is interpreted to only prohibit purposeful discrimination. The decision significantly strengthened the Voting Rights Act by upholding the 'effects test' of Section 5. It also established a crucial limitation on the federalism doctrine of National League of Cities, holding that principles of state sovereignty are necessarily overridden by Congress's authority to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Unlock the full brief for City of Rome v. United States