reno
attorney
general
bossier
parish
school
board
et
argued
december
decided
may
held
preclearance
may
denied
solely
basis
covered
jurisdiction
new
voting
standard
practice
procedure
violates
consistently
understood
combat
different
evils
accordingly
impose
different
duties
upon
see
holder
hall
plurality
opinion
section
freezes
election
procedures
covered
jurisdiction
jurisdiction
proves
proposed
changes
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
see
beer
designed
combat
effects
retrogressive
retrogression
definition
requires
comparison
jurisdiction
new
voting
plan
existing
plan
see
holder
supra
plurality
opinion
necessarily
implies
jurisdiction
existing
plan
benchmark
effect
voting
changes
measured
section
hand
applies
jurisdictions
uses
benchmark
comparison
vote
dilution
claims
hypothetical
undiluted
plan
making
compliance
contingent
upon
compliance
appellants
urge
intents
purposes
replace
standards
thus
contradicting
years
precedent
interpreting
see
beer
supra
appellants
contentions
reading
supported
beer
decision
attorney
general
regulations
public
policy
considerations
rejected
pp
evidence
showing
jurisdiction
redistricting
plan
dilutes
minorities
voting
power
may
relevant
establish
jurisdiction
intent
retrogress
need
decide
today
whether
evidence
relevant
establish
types
discriminatory
intent
whether
purpose
inquiry
ever
extends
beyond
search
retrogressive
intent
say
confidence
district
considered
evidence
proffered
show
board
reapportionment
plan
dilutive
aspect
holding
must
vacated
pp
section
evidence
may
relevant
within
meaning
federal
rule
evidence
fact
plan
dilutive
impact
makes
probable
jurisdiction
adopting
plan
acted
intent
retrogress
without
evidence
course
mean
evidence
plan
dilutive
impact
dispositive
purpose
inquiry
indeed
itwere
effectively
incorporated
result
finds
unsatisfactory
conducting
inquiry
jurisdiction
motivation
enacting
voting
changes
courts
look
guidance
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
development
sets
forth
framework
examining
discriminatory
purpose
pp
unable
determine
whether
district
deemed
irrelevant
evidence
dilutive
impact
redistricting
plan
adopted
board
language
opinion
consistent
today
holding
existence
less
dilutive
options
least
relevant
purpose
inquiry
district
also
appears
endorsed
notion
dilutive
impact
evidence
irrelevant
even
inquiry
retrogressive
intent
district
opportunity
apply
arlington
heights
test
remand
well
address
appellants
additional
arguments
erred
refusing
consider
evidence
board
violation
ongoing
injunction
remedy
remaining
vestiges
dual
school
system
pp
supp
vacated
remanded
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
full
ginsburg
breyer
joined
except
insofar
part
iii
inconsistent
views
expressed
concurrence
breyer
thomas
filed
concurring
opinion
breyer
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
ginsburg
joined
stevens
filed
opinion
dissenting
part
concurring
part
souter
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
nos
janet
reno
attorney
general
appellant
bossier
parish
school
board
et
al
george
price
et
appellants
appeals
district
district
columbia
may
justice
delivered
opinion
today
clarify
relationship
voting
rights
act
stat
amended
specifically
decide
two
questions
whether
preclearance
must
denied
whenever
covered
jurisdiction
new
voting
standard
practice
procedure
violates
ii
whether
evidence
new
standard
practice
procedure
dilutive
impact
always
irrelevant
inquiry
whether
covered
jurisdiction
acted
purpose
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
answer
negative
appellee
bossier
parish
school
board
board
jurisdiction
subject
preclearance
requirements
voting
rights
act
must
therefore
obtain
approval
either
attorney
general
district
district
columbia
implementing
changes
voting
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
board
members
elected
single
member
districts
majority
vote
serve
year
terms
census
revealed
wide
population
disparities
among
districts
see
app
juris
statement
stipulations
fact
law
board
decided
redraw
districts
equalize
population
distribution
process
board
considered
two
redistricting
plans
considered
initially
rejected
redistricting
plan
recently
adopted
bossier
parish
police
jury
parish
primary
governing
body
jury
plan
govern
elections
months
attorney
general
precleared
jury
plan
also
contained
districts
stipulations
none
districts
board
existing
plan
jury
plan
contained
majority
black
residents
stipulations
population
statistics
board
existing
districts
three
districts
highest
black
concentrations
contain
black
residents
respectively
stipulations
population
statistics
jury
plan
none
plan
districts
containing
black
majority
board
adoption
jury
plan
maintained
status
quo
regarding
number
black
majority
districts
parties
stipulated
jury
plan
retrogressive
stipulations
plan
retrogressive
minority
voting
strength
compared
existing
benchmark
plan
appellant
george
price
president
local
chapter
naacp
presented
board
asecond
option
plan
created
two
districts
containing
majority
black
residents
majority
voting
age
black
residents
stipulations
vocal
opposition
local
residents
black
white
alike
board
voted
adopt
jury
plan
reasoning
jury
plan
almost
certainly
precleared
naacp
plan
require
board
split
electoral
precincts
board
hopes
rapid
preclearance
dashed
attorney
general
interposed
formal
objection
board
plan
basis
new
information
available
justice
department
precleared
plan
police
jury
namely
naacp
plan
demonstrated
black
residents
sufficiently
numerous
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
two
single
member
districts
attorney
general
august
objection
letter
objection
letter
asserted
board
plan
violated
act
unnecessarily
limit
ed
opportunity
minority
voters
elect
candidates
choice
compared
new
alternative
relying
cfr
provides
attorney
general
shall
withhold
preclearance
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
amended
section
attorney
general
concluded
board
redistricting
plan
warranted
denial
preclearance
app
juris
statement
attorney
general
declined
reconsider
decision
ibid
board
filed
action
seeking
preclearance
district
district
columbia
appellant
price
others
intervened
defendants
three
judge
panel
granted
board
request
preclearance
dissent
one
judge
supp
dc
district
courtsquarely
rejected
appellants
contention
voting
change
alleged
failure
satisfy
constituted
independent
reason
deny
preclearance
hold
every
considered
question
political
subdivision
violate
either
effect
purpose
prong
section
denied
preclearance
alleged
section
violation
given
holding
district
quite
properly
expressed
opinion
whether
jury
plan
fact
violated
refusal
reach
decide
issue
dicta
require
us
justice
stevens
insists
assume
record
discloses
clear
violation
see
post
opinion
dissenting
part
concurring
part
issue
yet
decided
district
however
reject
appellants
related
argument
must
still
consider
evidence
section
violation
evidence
discriminatory
purpose
section
noted
probable
jurisdiction
june
voting
rights
act
act
et
enacted
congress
attac
blight
voting
discrimination
across
nation
south
carolina
katzenbach
two
weapons
federal
government
formidable
arsenal
act
although
consistently
understood
sections
combat
different
evils
accordingly
impose
different
duties
upon
see
holder
hall
plurality
opinion
noting
two
sections
differ
structure
purpose
application
appellants
nevertheless
ask
us
hold
violation
independent
reason
deny
preclearance
unlike
justice
stevens
post
opinion
dissenting
part
concurring
part
entertain
little
doubt
department
justice
litigants
routinely
attempt
avail
new
reason
denying
preclearance
recognizing
violations
basis
denying
preclearance
inevitably
make
compliance
contingent
upon
compliance
intents
purposes
replace
standards
contradict
longstanding
interpretation
two
sections
act
reject
appellants
position
section
enacted
response
common
practice
jurisdictions
staying
one
step
ahead
federal
courts
passing
new
discriminatory
voting
laws
soon
old
ones
struck
congress
therefore
decided
held
shift
advantage
time
inertia
perpetrators
evil
victim
freezing
election
procedures
covered
areas
unless
changes
shown
nondiscriminatory
beer
quoting
pp
retrogression
definition
requires
comparison
jurisdiction
new
voting
plan
existing
plan
see
holder
supra
plurality
opinion
proposed
voting
practice
measured
existing
voting
practice
determine
whether
retrogression
result
proposed
change
also
necessarily
implies
jurisdiction
existing
plan
benchmark
effect
voting
changes
measured
beer
example
concluded
city
new
orleans
reapportionment
council
districts
created
one
district
majority
voting
age
blacks
none
discriminatory
effect
thus
apparent
legislative
reapportionment
enhances
position
racial
minorities
respect
effective
exercise
electoral
franchise
hardly
effect
diluting
abridging
right
vote
account
race
within
meaning
likewise
city
lockhart
found
city
new
charter
retrogressive
effect
even
though
maintained
city
prior
practice
electing
council
members
large
numbered
posts
instituted
new
practice
electing
two
city
four
council
members
every
year
instead
electing
council
members
every
two
years
practice
discriminatory
effect
circumstances
fact
remained
ince
new
plan
increase
degree
discrimination
thecity
mexican
american
population
entitled
preclearance
retrogressive
emphasis
added
section
hand
designed
means
eradicating
voting
practices
minimize
cancel
voting
strength
political
effectiveness
minority
groups
supra
broader
mandate
bars
political
subdivisions
maintaining
voting
standard
practice
procedure
results
denial
abridgement
right
vote
account
race
color
voting
practice
impermissibly
dilutive
within
meaning
based
totality
circumstances
shown
political
processes
leading
nomination
election
state
political
subdivision
equally
open
participation
members
class
defined
race
color
members
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
appellants
contend
preclearance
must
denied
whenever
covered
jurisdiction
redistricting
plan
violates
upshot
position
shift
focus
nonretrogression
vote
dilution
change
benchmark
jurisdiction
existing
plan
hypothetical
undiluted
plan
held
designed
combat
effects
retrogressive
see
supra
adopt
appellants
position
call
question
years
precedent
interpreting
see
beer
supra
city
lockhart
supra
decline
section
already
imposes
upon
covered
jurisdiction
difficult
burden
proving
absence
discriminatory
purpose
effect
see
elkins
practical
matter
never
easy
prove
negative
require
jurisdiction
litigate
whether
proposed
redistricting
plan
also
dilutive
result
implement
plan
even
attorney
general
bears
burden
proving
result
increase
serious
federalism
costs
already
implicated
see
miller
johnson
slip
noting
federalism
costs
exacted
preclearance
appellants
nevertheless
contend
adopt
reading
supported
decision
beer
attorney
general
regulations
considerations
public
policy
beer
heldthat
prohibited
retrogressive
effects
observed
ameliorative
new
legislative
apportionment
violate
unless
new
apportionment
discriminates
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
although
allegation
redistricting
plan
beer
discriminate
basis
race
color
unconstitutional
cited
dicta
cases
illustrate
redistricting
plan
might
found
constitutionally
offensive
among
decision
white
regester
sustained
vote
dilution
challenge
brought
equal
protection
clause
use
multimember
election
districts
two
texas
counties
ibid
appellants
argue
ecause
vote
dilution
standards
constitution
section
generally
coextensive
time
beer
decided
beer
discussion
meant
practices
violated
section
entitled
preclearance
section
brief
federal
appellant
even
assuming
arguendo
appellants
argument
support
longer
valid
today
applicable
statutory
constitutional
standards
changed
since
plaintiff
bringing
constitutional
vote
dilution
challenge
whether
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendment
required
establish
state
political
subdivision
acted
discriminatory
purpose
see
mobile
bolden
plurality
opinion
decisions
made
clear
action
state
racially
neutral
face
violates
fifteenth
amendment
motivated
discriminatory
purpose
nly
purposeful
discrimination
violation
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
see
also
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
development
proof
racially
discriminatory
intent
purpose
required
show
violation
equal
protection
clause
congress
amended
clearly
expressed
desire
intent
component
see
th
amendment
designed
make
clear
proof
discriminatory
intent
required
establish
violation
section
constitution
requires
showing
intent
violation
longer
fortiori
violation
constitution
congress
acknowledged
fact
see
voting
rights
act
best
example
congress
power
enact
implementing
legislation
goes
beyond
direct
prohibitions
constitution
justice
stevens
argues
subsequent
divergence
constitutional
statutory
standards
moment
view
beer
purport
distinguish
challenges
brought
constitution
brought
voting
rights
statute
post
opinion
dissenting
part
concurring
part
citation
white
posits
incorporated
white
standard
exception
nonretrogressive
apportionments
violate
whether
standard
continued
coincide
constitutional
standard
essence
justice
stevens
reads
beer
creating
exception
nonretrogressive
apportionments
discriminate
basis
race
color
violate
federal
law
happens
coincide
amounted
constitutional
violation
reading
flatly
contradicts
plain
language
exception
recognized
applies
solely
apportionments
discriminat
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
beer
supra
emphasis
added
cited
white
embodied
current
constitutional
standard
violation
equal
protection
clause
see
also
noting
new
orleans
plan
remotely
approach
violation
constitutional
standards
enunciated
white
cited
cases
emphasis
added
white
ceased
represent
current
understanding
constitution
violation
standard
even
though
standard
later
incorporated
longer
constituted
grounds
denial
preclearance
beer
appellants
next
claim
must
defer
attorney
general
regulations
interpreting
act
one
instances
attorney
general
concludes
proposed
submitted
change
free
discriminatory
purpose
retrogressive
effect
also
concludes
bar
implementation
change
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
amended
section
attorney
general
shall
withhold
section
preclearance
cfr
portion
house
report
cited
justice
stevens
unambiguously
call
incorporation
portion
report
many
voting
election
practices
currently
effect
outside
scope
existence
voting
rights
act
whether
discriminatory
practice
procedure
recent
origin
affects
mechanism
triggers
relief
litigation
preclearance
appellants
final
appeal
notions
public
policy
assert
district
attorney
general
examined
whether
covered
jurisdiction
redistricting
plan
violates
time
ruled
preclearance
need
two
separate
actions
judicial
resources
conserved
appellants
undoubtedly
correct
adopting
interpretation
serve
judicial
economy
cases
challenge
follows
proceeding
always
happen
burden
judicial
resources
might
actually
increase
appellants
position
prevailed
litigation
effectively
incorporated
every
proceeding
appellants
lastly
argue
preclearance
equitable
remedy
obtained
declaratory
judgment
action
district
see
exercise
attorney
general
discretion
see
cfr
finding
redistricting
plan
violates
act
contend
equitable
defense
basis
decision
maker
exercise
equitable
discretion
free
deny
preclearance
argument
however
attempt
obtain
equity
law
settled
interpretation
forbids
well
established
ourts
equity
disregard
statutory
constitutional
requirements
provisions
courts
law
ins
pangilinan
citing
hedges
dixon
county
argument
must
fail
course
attorney
general
private
plaintiff
remains
free
initiate
proceeding
either
believes
jurisdiction
newly
enacted
voting
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
may
violate
section
hold
today
preclearance
may
denied
basis
alone
appellants
next
contend
evidence
showing
jurisdiction
redistricting
plan
dilutes
voting
power
minorities
see
supra
least
relevant
proceeding
tends
prove
jurisdiction
enacted
plan
discriminatory
purpose
district
reasoning
line
blurred
allowing
defendant
indirectly
directly
rejected
argument
held
permit
section
evidence
prove
discriminatory
purpose
section
ibid
hold
evidence
may
relevant
establish
jurisdiction
intent
retrogress
say
confidence
district
considered
evidence
proffered
show
board
reapportionment
plan
dilutive
vacate
aspect
district
holding
remand
light
conclusion
leave
open
another
day
question
whether
purpose
inquiry
ever
extends
beyond
search
retrogressive
intent
see
kentucky
dept
corrections
thompson
declining
decide
issue
necessary
decision
reserving
question
particularly
appropriate
case
squarely
addressed
decision
parties
briefs
appeal
see
brief
federal
appellant
brief
appellant
price
et
al
brief
appellee
contrary
justicestevens
view
see
post
opinion
dissenting
part
concurring
part
necessarily
assume
board
enacted
jury
plan
nonretrogressive
nevertheless
discriminatory
purpose
existence
purpose
relevance
issues
decided
remand
although
warrants
denial
preclearance
covered
jurisdiction
voting
change
ha
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
consistently
interpreted
language
light
purpose
underlying
insure
voting
procedure
changes
made
lead
retrogression
position
racial
minorities
beer
accordingly
adhered
view
effect
violates
retrogressive
one
beer
city
lockhart
evidence
relevant
tendency
make
existence
fact
consequence
determination
action
probable
less
probable
without
evidence
fed
rule
evid
observed
arlington
heights
impact
official
action
often
probative
action
taken
first
place
since
people
usually
intend
natural
consequences
actions
thus
jurisdiction
enacts
plan
dilutive
impact
likely
acted
discriminatory
intent
dilute
minority
voting
strength
jurisdiction
whose
plan
impact
jurisdiction
acts
intent
dilute
minority
voting
strength
likely
act
intent
worsen
position
minority
voters
intent
retrogress
jurisdiction
acting
intent
dilute
fact
plan
dilutive
impact
therefore
makes
probable
jurisdiction
adopting
plan
acted
intent
toretrogress
without
evidence
sure
link
dilutive
impact
intent
retrogress
far
direct
basic
standard
relevance
liberal
one
daubert
merrell
dow
pharmaceuticals
one
think
met
evidence
plan
dilutive
impact
may
relevant
purpose
inquiry
course
mean
evidence
dispositive
inquiry
fact
previously
observed
jurisdiction
single
decision
choose
redistricting
plan
dilutive
impact
without
suffice
establish
jurisdiction
acted
discriminatory
purpose
shaw
hunt
slip
doubt
showing
discriminatory
effect
alone
support
claim
discriminatory
purpose
true
whether
jurisdiction
chose
dilutive
plan
better
comported
traditional
districting
principles
see
miller
johnson
slip
rejecting
argument
jurisdiction
failure
adopt
plan
greatest
possible
number
majority
black
districts
establishes
acted
discriminatory
purpose
shaw
supra
slip
chose
plan
reason
indeed
plan
dilutive
impact
dispositive
effectively
incorporate
result
find
unsatisfactory
matter
packaged
see
part
ii
supra
discussion
illustrates
assessing
jurisdiction
motivation
enacting
voting
changes
complex
task
requiring
sensitive
inquiry
circumstantial
direct
evidence
may
available
arlington
heights
conducting
inquiry
courts
look
decision
arlington
heights
guidance
set
forth
framework
analyzing
whether
invidious
discriminatory
purpose
wasa
motivating
factor
government
body
decision
making
ibid
addition
serving
framework
examining
discriminatory
purpose
cases
brought
equal
protection
clause
two
decades
see
shaw
reno
citing
arlington
heights
standard
context
equal
protection
clause
challenge
racial
gerrymander
districts
rogers
moore
evaluating
vote
dilution
claim
equal
protection
clause
using
arlington
heights
test
mobile
arlington
heights
framework
also
used
least
part
evaluate
purpose
previous
cases
see
pleasant
grove
considering
city
history
rejecting
annexation
black
neighborhood
departure
normal
procedures
calculating
costs
annexation
alternatives
see
also
busbee
smith
supp
dc
summarily
aff
referring
arlington
heights
test
port
arthur
supp
aff
important
starting
point
assessing
discriminatory
intent
arlington
heights
impact
official
action
whether
bears
heavily
one
race
another
citing
washington
davis
case
impact
might
include
plan
retrogressive
effect
reasons
discussed
dilutive
impact
considerations
relevant
purpose
inquiry
include
among
things
historical
background
jurisdiction
decision
specific
sequence
events
leading
challenged
decision
epartures
normal
procedural
sequence
legislative
administrative
history
especially
contemporary
statements
members
decisionmaking
body
unable
determine
district
opinion
case
whether
deemed
irrelevant
evidence
dilutive
impact
redistricting
plan
adopted
board
one
point
district
correctly
stated
adoption
one
nonretrogressive
plan
rather
another
nonretrogressive
plan
contains
majority
black
districts
give
rise
inference
discriminatory
intent
emphasis
added
passage
implies
district
believed
existence
less
dilutive
options
least
relevant
though
dispositive
purpose
inquiry
language
consistent
holding
today
see
supra
district
also
declared
permit
section
evidence
prove
discriminatory
purpose
section
ibid
statement
district
appears
endorse
notion
evidence
dilutive
impact
irrelevant
even
inquiry
retrogressive
intent
notion
reject
see
supra
board
contends
district
actually
presumed
white
majority
districts
dilutive
effect
brief
appellee
cut
directly
dispositive
question
started
existence
dilutive
impact
board
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
motives
adopting
plan
even
board
correct
district
gave
indication
assuming
plan
dilutive
effect
hesitate
attribute
district
rationale
might
employed
satisfied
district
considered
evidence
dilutive
impact
board
redistricting
plan
vacate
aspect
district
opinion
district
opportunity
apply
arlington
heights
test
remand
well
address
appellants
additional
arguments
erred
refusing
consider
evidence
board
inviolation
ongoing
injunction
remedy
remaining
vestiges
dual
school
system
judgment
district
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
decision
ordered
nos
janet
reno
attorney
general
appellant
bossier
parish
school
board
et
al
george
price
et
appellants
appeals
district
district
columbia
may
justice
stevens
justice
souter
joins
view
plan
clearly
violates
entitled
preclearance
voting
rights
act
majority
contrary
view
allow
attorney
general
place
stamp
approval
state
action
clear
violation
federal
law
astonishing
congress
commanded
fact
ever
congress
issued
command
surely
command
found
text
voting
rights
act
moreover
fair
review
text
thelegislative
history
amendment
act
indicates
congress
intended
attorney
general
deny
preclearance
whenever
clear
new
voting
practice
prohibited
mean
must
make
independent
inquiry
possible
violations
whenever
request
preclearance
made
simply
means
regulations
provide
must
refuse
preclearance
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
amended
section
cfr
course
well
settled
attorney
general
must
refuse
preclear
new
election
procedure
covered
jurisdiction
lead
retrogression
inthe
position
racial
minorities
respect
effective
exercise
electoral
franchise
beer
retrogressive
effect
retrogressive
purpose
sufficient
basis
denying
preclearance
request
today
however
holds
retrogression
kind
effect
justify
denial
preclearance
ante
assumes
purpose
inquiry
never
extends
beyond
search
retrogressive
intent
ante
agree
action
must
remanded
even
miserly
interpretation
disagree
concerned
retrogressive
effects
purposes
explaining
disagreement
think
important
emphasize
three
factual
predicates
underlie
analysis
issues
first
assume
plan
submitted
board
retrogressive
make
matters
worse
past
none
districts
ever
black
majority
black
person
never
elected
bossier
parish
school
board
board
app
juris
statement
second
majority
district
found
even
clear
violations
must
precleared
thus
found
unnecessary
discuss
whether
violated
action
may
assume
record
discloses
clear
violation
means
language
perfectly
clear
political
processes
leading
nomination
election
positions
board
equally
open
participation
members
african
american
race
members
less
opportunity
members
electorate
elect
representatives
choice
third
correct
assuming
purpose
inquiry
may
limited
evidence
retrogressive
intent
must
also
willing
assume
documents
submitted
support
request
preclearance
clearly
establish
plan
adopted
specific
purpose
preventing
african
americans
obtaining
representation
board
indeed
purpose
analyzing
legal
issues
must
assume
judge
kessler
concurring
part
dissenting
part
accurately
summarized
evidence
wrote
evidence
case
demonstrates
overwhelmingly
school
board
decision
adopt
police
jury
redistricting
plan
motivated
discriminatory
purpose
adoption
police
jury
plan
bears
heavily
black
community
denies
members
reasonable
opportunity
elect
candidate
choice
history
discrimination
bossier
school
system
parish
demonstrates
board
continued
refusal
address
concerns
black
community
bossier
parish
sequence
events
leading
adoption
plan
illustrate
board
discriminatory
purpose
school
board
substantive
departures
traditional
districting
principles
similarly
probative
discriminatorymotive
three
school
board
members
acknowledged
board
hostile
black
representation
moreover
purported
rationales
school
board
decision
flat
untrue
others
glaringly
inconsistent
facts
case
obviously
pretexts
supp
cadc
voting
rights
act
congress
enacted
complex
scheme
remedies
racial
discrimination
voting
originally
enacted
act
uncontroversial
provision
simply
restated
prohibitions
discrimination
already
contained
fifteenth
amendment
mobile
bolden
plurality
opinion
like
constitutional
prohibitions
discriminatory
districting
practices
invalidated
cases
like
gomillion
lightfoot
white
regester
made
applicable
every
state
political
subdivision
country
section
hand
highly
controversial
imposed
novel
extraordinary
remedies
certain
areas
discrimination
flagrant
see
south
carolina
katzenbach
jurisdictions
like
bossierparish
louisiana
covered
history
discrimination
african
americans
matter
special
concern
congress
jurisdictions
resorted
various
strategies
avoid
complying
orders
remedy
discrimination
congress
reason
suppose
might
try
similar
maneuvers
future
order
evade
remedies
voting
discrimination
contained
act
thus
congress
enacted
maintain
discriminatory
status
quo
stay
ahead
efforts
resistant
jurisdictions
undermine
act
purpose
rid
ding
country
racial
discrimination
heart
act
complex
scheme
stringent
remedies
aimed
areas
voting
discrimination
flagrant
areas
country
lacking
history
pervasive
discrimination
congress
presumed
voting
practices
generally
lawful
accordingly
burden
proving
violation
always
rested
party
challenging
voting
practice
situation
dramatically
different
covered
jurisdictions
jurisdictions
flatly
prohibits
adoption
new
voting
procedure
unless
state
political
subdivision
institutes
action
federal
district
district
columbia
obtains
declaratory
judgment
change
discriminatory
purpose
effect
see
burden
proving
compliance
act
rests
jurisdiction
proviso
gives
attorney
general
authority
allow
new
procedure
go
effect
like
immigration
statutes
give
broad
discretion
waive
deportation
undesirable
aliens
expressly
impose
limit
discretion
refuse
preclearance
see
ibid
attorney
general
discretion
however
cabined
regulations
presumptively
valid
reasonable
notconflict
voting
rights
act
georgia
regulations
provide
preclearance
generally
granted
proposed
change
free
discriminatory
purpose
retrogressive
effect
also
provide
however
instances
attorney
general
concludes
bar
implementation
change
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
amended
section
preclearance
shall
withheld
basis
speculation
litigants
routinely
ante
employ
year
old
regulation
make
compliance
contingent
upon
compliance
ante
regulations
require
jurisdiction
assume
burden
proving
absence
vote
dilution
see
ante
merely
preclude
preclearance
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
section
burden
ofdisproving
discriminatory
purpose
retrogressive
effect
submitting
jurisdiction
attorney
general
conclusion
change
clearly
violate
challenged
burden
issue
challenge
rest
attorney
general
suggest
regulation
inconsistent
text
persuasive
since
language
forbids
preclearance
voting
practice
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
instead
rests
entire
analysis
flawed
premise
cases
hold
change
even
otherwise
unlawful
effect
prohibited
unless
effect
retrogressive
two
cases
relies
beer
city
lockhart
hold
current
regulations
provide
proof
change
retrogressive
normally
sufficient
justify
preclearance
neither
case
however
confronted
question
whether
showing
sufficient
theproposed
change
discriminatory
clearly
violated
federal
law
fact
beer
held
legislative
reapportionment
enhancing
position
african
american
voters
discriminatory
effect
stated
ameliorative
new
legislative
apportionment
violate
unless
new
apportionment
discriminates
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
thus
extent
beer
addressed
question
suggested
certain
nonretrogressive
changes
nevertheless
discriminatory
precleared
discounts
significance
unless
clause
refers
constitutional
violation
rather
statutory
violation
according
reading
beer
dictum
precludes
preclearance
changes
violate
constitution
rather
changes
violate
argument
unpersuasive
majority
notes
beer
cites
white
regester
found
unconstitutional
reapportionment
scheme
gave
african
american
residents
less
opportunity
residents
district
participate
political
processes
elect
legislators
choice
beer
decided
standard
coextensive
constitutional
standard
beer
purport
distinguish
challenges
brought
constitution
brought
statute
rather
beer
dictum
suggests
changes
violate
standardestablished
white
regester
precleared
recognizes
ante
law
changed
two
respects
since
announcement
beer
dictum
perceived
congress
change
standard
applied
white
regester
plurality
concluded
discriminatory
purpose
essential
element
constitutional
vote
dilution
challenge
see
mobile
bolden
reaction
decision
congress
amended
placing
statute
language
used
white
opinion
describe
commonly
known
results
standard
evaluating
vote
dilution
challenges
see
stat
codified
thornburg
gingles
thus
congress
preserved
matter
statutory
law
standard
identified
beer
exception
general
rule
requiring
pre
clearance
nonretrogressive
changes
beer
required
denial
preclearance
voting
plans
violated
white
standard
follows
congress
preserving
white
standard
intended
also
attorney
general
continue
refuse
preclear
plans
violating
standard
intent
confirmed
legislative
history
act
senate
report
rule
beer
voting
change
ameliorative
objectionable
unless
change
discriminates
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
see
also
citing
dilution
cases
fortson
dorsey
white
regester
light
amendment
section
intended
section
objection
also
follow
new
voting
procedure
discriminates
violate
section
despite
strong
evidence
congress
intent
majority
holds
deference
attorney
general
regulation
warranted
suggests
congress
wished
alter
longstanding
interpretation
congress
made
clear
ante
nothing
settled
interpretation
ante
inconsistent
attorney
general
reading
statute
contrary
precedent
actually
indicates
nonretrogressive
plans
otherwise
discriminatory
white
regester
precleared
neither
language
legislative
history
said
conflict
view
changes
clearly
violate
entitled
preclearance
legitimate
basis
refusing
defer
attorney
general
regulation
see
presley
etowah
county
part
iii
opinion
correctly
concludes
action
must
remanded
proceedings
district
erroneously
refused
consider
certain
evidence
arguably
relevant
towhether
board
proved
absence
discriminatory
purpose
appears
satisfied
disputed
evidence
may
probative
intent
retrogress
concludes
unnecessary
decide
whether
purpose
inquiry
ever
extends
beyond
search
retrogressive
intent
ante
two
reasons
think
unwise
reverse
narrow
ground
first
agree
justice
breyer
see
ante
simply
basis
imposing
limitation
purpose
inquiry
none
cases
held
purpose
test
limited
retrogressive
intent
pleasant
grove
instance
found
city
failed
prove
annexation
certain
white
areas
lacked
discriminatory
purpose
despite
fact
annexation
lacked
retrogressive
effect
found
subject
preclearance
ibid
see
also
powell
dissenting
contending
majority
erred
holding
discriminatory
purpose
found
even
though
intent
retrogressive
effect
furthermore
limiting
purpose
inquiry
retrogressive
intent
inconsistent
basic
purpose
act
assume
example
record
unambiguously
disclosed
long
history
deliberate
exclusion
african
americans
participating
local
elections
including
series
changes
adopted
specific
purpose
maintaining
status
quo
none
changes
motivated
intent
regress
motivated
discriminatory
purpose
term
commonly
understood
given
long
settled
understanding
act
enacted
prevent
covered
jurisdictions
contriving
new
rules
various
kinds
sole
purpose
perpetuating
voting
discrimination
south
carolina
katzenbach
isinconceivable
congress
intended
authorize
preclearance
changes
adopted
sole
purpose
perpetuating
existing
pattern
discrimination
second
failure
make
point
clear
complicate
task
district
remand
takes
narrow
approach
suggested
another
appeal
surely
follow
majority
ultimately
agrees
view
issue
another
remand
necessary
hand
district
limit
consideration
evidence
retrogressive
intent
therefore
rules
board
respondents
bring
case
back
resolve
issue
definitively
sum
interest
orderly
procedure
fact
correct
answer
issue
pellucidly
clear
sufficient
persuade
state
definitively
preclearance
denied
judge
kessler
evaluation
record
correct
accordingly
concur
judgment
insofar
remands
action
proceedings
dissent
decision
insofar
fails
authorize
proceedings
accordance
views
set
forth
footnotes
together
price
et
al
bossier
parish
school
board
et
also
appeal
originally
enacted
provided
sec
whenever
state
political
subdivision
respect
prohibitions
set
forth
section
effect
shall
enact
seek
administer
voting
qualification
prerequisite
voting
standard
practice
procedure
respect
voting
different
force
effect
november
state
subdivision
may
institute
action
district
district
columbia
declaratory
judgment
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
unless
enters
judgment
person
shall
denied
right
vote
failure
comply
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
provided
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
may
enforced
without
proceeding
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
submitted
chief
legal
officer
appropriate
official
state
subdivision
attorney
general
attorney
general
interposed
objection
within
sixty
days
submission
except
neither
attorney
general
failure
object
declara
tory
judgment
entered
section
shall
bar
subsequent
action
enjoin
enforcement
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
action
section
shall
heard
determined
three
judges
accordance
provisions
section
title
code
uscs
appeal
shall
lie
stat
although
majority
district
refused
consider
evidence
relevant
violation
parties
stipulations
suggest
plan
violated
instance
parties
stipulated
long
history
discrimination
black
voters
bossier
parish
see
app
juris
statement
voting
bossier
parish
racially
polarized
see
possible
draw
two
majority
black
districts
without
violating
traditional
districting
principles
see
section
act
sets
forth
formula
identifying
jurisdictions
discrimination
occurred
see
south
carolina
katzenbach
title
cfr
provides
consistency
constitutional
statutory
requirements
consideration
general
making
determination
attorney
general
consider
whether
change
free
discriminatory
purpose
retrogressive
effect
light
particular
attention
given
requirements
amendments
constitution
sections
act
constitutional
statutory
provisions
designed
safeguard
right
vote
denial
abridgment
account
race
color
membership
language
minority
group
section
preclearance
section
voting
change
preclude
legal
action
section
attorney
general
implementation
change
subsequently
demonstrates
action
appropriate
instances
attorney
general
concludes
proposed
submitted
change
free
discriminatory
purpose
retrogressive
effect
also
concludes
bar
implementation
change
necessary
prevent
clear
violation
amended
section
attorney
general
shall
withhold
section
preclearance
thus
agree
courts
found
jurisdiction
required
prove
proposed
change
violate
order
receive
preclearance
see
arizona
reno
supp
dc
although
several
three
judge
district
courts
concluded
standards
incorporated
none
held
preclearance
granted
clear
violation
rather
appear
simply
determined
inquiry
routinely
required
case
see
georgia
reno
supp
dc
new
york
supp
dc
cf
burton
sheheen
supp
sc
holding
although
courts
obligated
completely
graft
standards
onto
incongruous
adopt
plan
comport
standards
guidelines
lockhart
disavowed
reliance
ameliorative
character
change
reviewed
beer
see
left
open
question
whether
congress
altered
beer
standard
amended
said
nothing
possible
significance
violation
constitutional
statutory
prohibition
vote
dilution
response
dissent
majority
contends
beer
allows
denial
preclearance
changes
violate
constitution
see
ante
thus
majority
apparently
concedes
settled
interpretation
ante
supports
denial
preclearance
least
nonretrogressive
changes
amended
version
tracks
language
white
regester
postenactment
legislative
record
also
supports
attorney
general
interpretation
attorney
general
first
proposed
regulations
requiring
denial
preclearance
based
upon
violation
section
clear
convincing
evidence
violation
fed
reg
congress
held
oversight
hearings
several
witnesses
including
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
division
testified
clear
violations
precleared
see
oversight
hearings
subcommittee
civil
constitutional
rights
house
committee
judiciary
proposed
changes
regulations
governing
section
voting
rights
act
following
hearings
house
judiciary
subcommittee
civil
constitutional
rights
issued
report
concluded
proper
interpretation
legislative
history
amendments
use
section
course
making
section
determinations
subcommittee
civil
constitutional
rights
house
committee
judiciary
voting
rights
act
proposed
section
regulations
ser
comm
print
although
history
provide
direct
evidence
enacting
congress
intent
constitute
informed
expert
opinion
concerning
validity
attorney
general
regulation