Lopez v. Monterey County
136 L. Ed. 2d 273, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6826, 519 US 9 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a federal district court must enjoin a covered jurisdiction from implementing a new voting plan that has not received federal preclearance and lacks the authority to order an election under such an unprecleared plan, even as a temporary remedy.
Facts:
- In 1971, Monterey County, California, was designated a 'covered jurisdiction' under the Voting Rights Act, requiring it to get federal approval ('preclearance') for any changes to its voting procedures.
- As of 1968, the County was divided into nine judicial districts (two municipal and seven justice courts), and judges were elected at-large by voters within their respective districts.
- Between 1972 and 1983, the County adopted six ordinances that consolidated the nine separate judicial districts into a single, countywide municipal court district.
- This consolidation created a new system where all municipal court judges were elected at-large by the voters of the entire county.
- Monterey County implemented this new at-large, countywide election system and held several elections under it without first obtaining federal preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Procedural Posture:
- Five Hispanic voters (appellants) sued Monterey County in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- A three-judge District Court was convened and ruled that the County's consolidation ordinances were voting changes that were unenforceable without federal preclearance.
- The District Court ordered the County to seek preclearance. The County filed a judicial preclearance action in the D.C. District Court but later voluntarily dismissed it.
- The County then stipulated in the California District Court that it was unable to prove the ordinances did not have a discriminatory effect.
- After rejecting several proposed interim plans, the District Court ordered the County to conduct an at-large, countywide election under the very same consolidation plan that had not been precleared.
- The voters appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and were granted an emergency application to enjoin the election pending appeal.
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 permit a federal district court to authorize a covered jurisdiction to conduct an election under a new voting plan that has not received the required federal preclearance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. A federal district court cannot authorize an election under an unprecleared voting plan subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Act gives exclusive authority to the Attorney General and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether a voting change has a discriminatory purpose or effect. The role of a three-judge district court in a Section 5 enforcement action is limited to determining if a change is covered by the Act, if preclearance was obtained, and, if not, to enjoin its implementation and order the jurisdiction to seek preclearance. Ordering an election under the very plan that lacks preclearance, as the District Court did here, directly conflicts with the statute's mandate and the precedent set in Clark v. Roemer, which requires enjoining such elections absent extreme circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the strict, non-discretionary nature of the preclearance requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It clarifies that the remedial powers of a local three-judge district court are narrowly circumscribed; their primary function is to enforce the preclearance process, not to usurp it by evaluating or implementing an unprecleared plan. By reversing the district court's order, the Supreme Court prevented the creation of an equitable exception that could have weakened Section 5's prophylactic power. The case reinforces that covered jurisdictions cannot bypass the mandated federal review, and courts must act as gatekeepers to ensure that process is followed.
