lopez
et
al
monterey
county
et
argued
november
decided
january
section
voting
rights
act
requires
designated
political
subdivisions
obtain
federal
preclearance
either
attorney
general
district
district
columbia
giving
effect
changes
voting
laws
monterey
county
county
jurisdiction
covered
enacted
series
ordinances
effecting
changes
method
electing
county
judges
appellants
hispanic
voters
residing
county
filed
suit
alleging
county
failed
fulfill
obligation
preclear
changes
see
lopez
monterey
county
district
ultimately
dismissed
complaint
ground
california
covered
also
passed
legislation
requiring
voting
changes
challenged
appellants
county
need
seek
federal
approval
giving
effect
changes
reasoned
california
subject
county
merely
implementing
california
law
without
exercising
independent
discretion
held
act
preclearance
requirements
apply
measures
mandated
noncovered
state
extent
measures
effect
voting
change
covered
county
accordingly
monterey
county
obligated
seek
preclearance
giving
effect
voting
changes
required
california
law
pp
section
plain
language
requiring
federal
preclearance
whenever
covered
jurisdiction
shall
enact
seek
administer
voting
change
provides
compelling
support
conclusion
preclearance
requirement
applies
covered
county
nondiscretionary
efforts
implement
voting
change
required
state
law
notwithstanding
fact
state
covered
jurisdiction
seek
administer
phrase
provides
indication
congress
intended
limit
preclearance
obligations
covered
jurisdictions
discretionary
actions
contrary
dictionaries
consistently
define
administer
purely
nondiscretionary
terms
state
view
administer
intended
capture
covered
jurisdiction
nonlegislative
executive
initiatives
poses
barrier
view
administer
also
encompasses
nondiscretionary
acts
covered
jurisdictions
endeavoring
comply
superior
law
use
seek
require
act
discretion
covered
jurisdiction
context
seek
readily
understood
creating
temporal
distinction
covered
jurisdiction
need
seek
preclearance
enacting
legislation
effect
voting
change
must
seek
preclearance
actually
administering
change
reading
supported
prior
assumption
preclearance
required
noncovered
state
effects
voting
changes
covered
counties
see
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
numerous
preclearance
submissions
received
justice
department
cases
lower
federal
courts
interested
parties
labored
assumption
see
shaw
reno
finally
especially
relevant
attorney
general
consistently
construed
interpretation
entitled
substantial
deference
light
central
role
implementing
pp
interpretation
unconstitutionally
tread
rights
reserved
although
recognizing
act
imposes
substantial
federalism
costs
miller
johnson
likewise
acknowledged
reconstruction
amendments
include
fifteenth
amendment
act
passed
nature
contemplate
intrusion
areas
traditionally
reserved
legislation
deters
remedies
constitutional
violations
fall
within
sweep
congress
enforcement
power
even
prohibits
conduct
unconstitutional
intrudes
areas
city
boerne
flores
moreover
specifically
upheld
constitutionality
challenge
provision
usurps
powers
reserved
see
south
carolina
katzenbach
katzenbach
require
different
result
held
cover
acts
initiated
noncovered
recognized
jurisdiction
designated
covered
act
may
guard
discriminatory
animus
potentially
harmful
effect
neutral
laws
jurisdiction
precisely
text
requires
provides
district
district
columbia
may
preclear
proposed
voting
change
concludes
change
purpose
effect
denying
right
vote
account
impermissible
classification
emphasis
supplied
attorney
general
employs
standard
deciding
whether
object
proposed
voting
change
thus
merit
california
claim
congress
lacks
fifteenth
amendment
authority
require
federal
approval
implementation
state
law
may
discriminatory
effect
covered
county
moreover
even
california
correct
partially
covered
state
like
seek
exemption
act
coverage
behalf
covered
counties
advance
state
constitutional
claim
since
question
county
may
avail
bailout
provision
state
also
errs
asserting
certain
prior
decisions
require
covered
jurisdiction
exercise
discretion
policy
choice
order
trigger
preclearance
requirements
young
fordice
city
monroe
distinguished
state
benefit
exception
preclearance
requirement
recognized
voting
changes
crafted
federal
district
courts
connor
johnson
mcdaniel
sanchez
distinguished
pp
reversed
remanded
delivered
opinion
stevens
scalia
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
kennedy
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
rehnquist
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
vicky
lopez
et
al
appellants
monterey
county
et
al
appeal
district
northern
district
california
january
justice
delivered
opinion
voting
rights
act
stat
amended
et
seq
act
voting
rights
act
designated
political
subdivisions
required
obtain
federal
preclearance
giving
effect
changes
voting
laws
see
state
california
california
state
subject
act
preclearance
requirements
passed
legislation
altering
scheme
electing
judges
monterey
county
california
monterey
county
county
covered
jurisdiction
required
preclear
voting
changes
appeal
review
conclusion
district
monterey
county
need
seek
approval
changes
giving
effect
district
reasoned
specifically
california
subject
preclearance
requirement
monterey
county
merely
implemented
california
law
without
exercising
independent
discretion
hold
act
preclearance
requirements
apply
measures
mandated
noncovered
state
extent
measures
effect
voting
change
covered
county
accordingly
reverse
decision
district
instant
appeal
marks
second
occasion
addressed
issues
arising
course
litigation
method
electing
judges
monterey
county
assume
familiarity
previous
decision
case
see
lopez
monterey
county
congress
enacted
voting
rights
act
authority
enforce
fifteenth
amendment
proscription
voting
discrimination
act
contains
generally
applicable
voting
rights
protections
also
places
special
restrictions
voting
activity
within
designated
covered
jurisdictions
jurisdictions
political
subdivisions
selected
coverage
meet
specified
criteria
suggesting
presence
voting
discrimination
jurisdiction
criteria
pertinent
case
established
amendment
act
extended
coverage
jurisdiction
attorney
general
determines
maintained
november
test
device
prerequisite
voting
respect
ii
director
census
determines
less
per
centum
persons
voting
age
residing
therein
registered
november
less
per
centum
persons
voted
presidential
election
november
stat
act
subjects
covered
jurisdictions
special
restrictions
voting
laws
section
suspends
use
test
device
jurisdiction
designated
coverage
addition
act
provides
covered
jurisdictions
must
obtain
federal
approval
measure
departs
voting
scheme
place
jurisdiction
specified
date
portion
applicable
case
provides
specifically
federal
preclearance
required
whenever
covered
state
political
subdivision
shall
enact
seek
administer
voting
qualification
prerequisite
voting
standard
practice
procedure
respect
voting
different
force
effect
november
covered
jurisdiction
two
avenues
available
seek
federal
preclearance
required
jurisdiction
may
submit
proposed
voting
change
attorney
general
attorney
general
affirmatively
approves
change
fails
object
within
days
change
deemed
precleared
jurisdiction
may
put
effect
ibid
alternatively
either
first
instance
following
objection
attorney
general
covered
jurisdiction
may
seek
preclearance
voting
change
filing
declaratory
judgment
action
district
district
columbia
ibid
change
precleared
declares
proposed
qualification
prerequisite
standard
practice
procedure
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
contravention
guarantees
set
forth
section
title
proscribing
voting
restrictions
based
membership
language
minority
group
monterey
county
designated
covered
jurisdiction
based
findings
november
county
maintained
california
statewide
literacy
test
prerequisite
voting
less
percent
county
voting
age
population
participated
november
presidential
election
fed
reg
fed
reg
see
also
accordingly
county
must
obtain
federal
preclearance
departure
voting
scheme
place
november
fact
last
years
numerous
changes
structure
county
trial
system
scheme
electing
judges
november
monterey
county
nine
judicial
districts
two
municipal
seven
justice
districts
observed
earlier
opinion
see
lopez
monterey
county
supra
municipal
districts
encompassed
larger
populations
justice
counterparts
former
districts
two
judges
whereas
latter
one
moreover
justice
courts
courts
record
judges
frequently
worked
part
time
nine
districts
place
wholly
independent
judges
elected
large
voters
district
served
since
however
county
judicial
system
undergone
substantial
change
resulting
today
single
countywide
municipal
served
judges
four
county
ordinances
adopted
reduced
number
justice
districts
county
seven
three
subsequently
state
law
transformed
justice
district
municipal
district
raising
total
number
municipal
districts
three
cal
ch
next
noteworthy
change
county
judicial
election
scheme
occurred
consolidation
county
three
municipal
districts
june
county
passed
ordinance
provided
monterey
peninsula
judicial
district
north
monterey
county
judicial
district
salinas
judicial
district
combined
form
monterey
county
municipal
district
app
juris
statement
year
state
enacted
law
apparently
county
request
requiring
merger
municipal
districts
mapping
mechanics
new
consolidated
district
cal
ch
see
also
noting
act
accordance
request
local
governmental
entity
entities
desired
legislative
authority
carry
program
specified
act
act
provides
pertinent
part
county
monterey
effective
date
section
single
municipal
district
embraces
former
salinas
judicial
district
monterey
peninsula
judicial
district
north
monterey
county
judicial
district
id
changes
thus
left
county
one
municipal
district
two
justice
districts
final
step
toward
single
countywide
district
occurred
county
ordinance
passed
monterey
county
board
supervisors
august
merged
remaining
two
justice
districts
municipal
district
formed
consolidation
app
juris
statement
merger
became
effective
january
resulting
district
countywide
state
apparently
county
request
enacted
legislation
september
increasing
number
judges
county
municipal
district
seven
nine
contingent
upon
merger
justice
districts
already
provided
county
ordinance
cal
ch
state
subsequently
recognized
merger
taken
effect
provided
additional
judgeships
cal
ch
moreover
pursuant
state
authorization
county
ultimately
increased
number
sitting
judges
current
cal
ch
app
juris
statement
judicial
elections
took
place
countywide
plan
county
although
covered
act
failed
seek
federal
preclearance
six
consolidation
ordinances
state
preclear
law
like
county
ordinance
adopted
year
directed
consolidation
three
municipal
districts
state
seek
attorney
general
approval
however
state
law
authorizing
additional
judgeships
upon
final
merger
justice
courts
single
countywide
municipal
district
process
state
provided
department
justice
copy
county
consolidation
ordinance
attorney
general
oppose
state
submission
thus
observed
submission
may
well
served
preclear
county
ordinance
lopez
monterey
county
noted
however
preclearance
county
ordinance
probably
failed
satisfy
need
preclear
preceding
consolidation
ordinances
ibid
thus
precedent
previous
consolidation
ordinances
appear
received
federal
preclearance
approval
state
challenge
conclusion
see
brief
appellee
state
california
appellants
hispanic
voters
reside
monterey
county
filed
suit
district
northern
district
california
september
claiming
county
failed
fulfill
obligation
preclear
consolidation
ordinances
passed
district
concluded
ordinances
voting
changes
requiring
preclearance
ordinances
unenforceable
precleared
accordingly
county
initiated
proceedings
district
district
columbia
effort
preclear
ordinances
ultimately
however
county
agreed
dismiss
suit
without
prejudice
stipulate
board
supervisors
unable
establish
consolidation
ordinances
adopted
county
effect
denying
right
vote
latinos
monterey
county
due
retrogressive
effect
several
ordinances
latino
voting
strength
monterey
county
lopez
monterey
county
supp
nd
cal
quoting
monterey
county
resolution
march
back
district
northern
district
california
appellants
county
working
together
submitted
alternatives
districtwide
voting
scheme
meanwhile
state
allowed
intervene
proceedings
opposed
proposed
plans
ground
violated
aspects
california
constitution
governing
judicial
elections
late
unsuccessful
attempts
county
secure
amendment
california
constitution
appellants
county
remained
unable
formulate
judicial
election
plan
felt
comport
requirements
voting
rights
act
violate
aspect
state
law
circumstances
district
opted
put
voting
scheme
place
purposes
single
election
see
temporary
plan
judges
elected
districts
served
countywide
violated
california
constitutional
provisions
requiring
jurisdiction
coextensive
judge
electoral
base
prohibiting
division
cities
among
two
municipal
courts
see
cal
art
vi
art
vi
district
concluded
however
single
election
interfere
minimally
state
interests
see
attorney
general
precleared
interim
plan
march
judges
selected
special
election
serve
january
following
election
however
decided
miller
johnson
district
view
cast
doubt
legality
interim
plan
determined
options
feasible
thus
ordered
new
judicial
election
held
march
countywide
voting
scheme
scheme
county
effected
consolidation
ordinances
appellants
challenged
original
complaint
granted
appellants
emergency
stay
application
enjoined
proposed
countywide
election
subsequently
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeal
reversed
lopez
monterey
county
district
erred
concluded
directing
election
take
place
scheme
precleared
required
accordingly
remanded
matter
district
directed
requirement
federal
scrutiny
satisfied
without
delay
expressly
declined
pass
merits
claim
raised
state
current
countywide
election
scheme
subject
preclearance
scheme
required
combination
precleared
law
california
law
state
law
view
require
preclearance
product
covered
jurisdiction
remand
state
moved
dismiss
appellants
complaint
theory
among
others
district
agreed
preclearance
unnecessary
countywide
scheme
mandated
california
law
nd
app
juris
statement
among
grounds
dismissal
raised
motion
state
also
alleged
appellants
claims
barred
laches
constitutional
error
designate
county
covered
jurisdiction
consolidation
ordinances
alter
voting
standard
practice
procedure
subject
preclearance
district
address
alternative
bases
dismiss
appellants
complaint
however
reach
state
also
moved
vacate
september
order
extending
terms
judges
elected
interim
plan
district
granted
request
along
state
motion
dismiss
granting
motion
dismiss
district
reasoned
terms
creates
preclearance
obligation
covered
jurisdictions
noncovered
entities
like
state
bear
responsibility
preclear
voting
changes
enact
seek
administer
see
purpose
appears
target
enactments
jurisdictions
suspected
abridging
right
vote
put
force
superior
jurisdiction
ibid
district
concluded
state
law
consolidated
three
existing
municipal
courts
mandated
one
municipal
district
county
act
view
require
preclearance
product
state
noncovered
jurisdiction
additional
change
effected
county
ordinance
merging
remaining
justice
districts
municipal
district
precleared
moreover
reasoned
even
ordinance
received
preclearance
amendment
california
constitution
effective
january
eliminated
justice
courts
thus
remaining
two
justice
districts
merged
municipal
district
matter
course
see
cal
art
vi
justice
districts
unable
become
municipal
districts
district
reasoned
light
state
constitutional
provision
requiring
minimum
residents
municipal
district
app
juris
statement
see
cal
art
vi
reaching
conclusion
expressly
rejected
appellants
claim
even
voting
changes
effected
california
law
require
preclearance
county
may
seek
administer
relying
decision
young
fordice
district
concluded
jurisdiction
seek
administer
voting
change
language
used
jurisdiction
exercises
element
discretion
policy
choice
matter
app
juris
statement
found
county
choice
implement
countywide
voting
scheme
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeal
order
dismissing
appellants
complaint
reverse
ii
appellants
county
together
contend
county
must
obtain
preclearance
changes
leading
countywide
voting
scheme
giving
effect
scheme
state
urges
response
expressly
limits
preclearance
requirements
covered
jurisdictions
partially
covered
jurisdictions
like
california
state
insists
obligation
comply
appellants
argue
however
state
obligated
seek
preclearance
voting
changes
effects
rather
appellants
claim
county
unquestionably
subject
must
pursue
preclearance
voting
changes
seek
administer
aspects
countywide
voting
plan
may
required
state
law
appellants
view
irrelevant
analysis
county
seek
administer
scheme
accordingly
question
whether
covered
jurisdiction
seek
administer
voting
change
without
exercising
independent
discretion
jurisdiction
implements
change
required
superior
law
noncovered
state
agree
appellants
covered
jurisdiction
seek
administer
voting
change
even
jurisdiction
exercises
discretion
giving
effect
change
conclude
county
required
seek
preclearance
implementing
california
laws
effect
voting
changes
county
face
act
provides
compelling
support
appellants
claim
phrase
seek
administer
provides
indication
congress
intended
limit
preclearance
obligations
discretionary
actions
covered
jurisdictions
contrary
administer
consistently
defined
purely
terms
see
webster
third
new
international
dictionary
manage
affairs
direct
superintend
execution
use
conduct
random
house
dictionary
english
language
ed
manage
affairs
government
etc
executive
charge
black
law
dictionary
ed
manage
conduct
state
view
administer
intended
capture
covered
jurisdiction
nonlegislative
executive
initiatives
contrary
reading
poses
barrier
view
administer
also
encompasses
nondiscretionary
acts
covered
jurisdictions
endeavoring
comply
superior
law
state
persuaded
congress
use
word
seek
intended
require
act
discretion
covered
jurisdiction
order
trigger
preclearance
requirement
word
seek
context
readily
understood
creating
temporal
distinction
government
indicated
covered
jurisdiction
need
seek
preclearance
enacting
legislation
effect
voting
change
see
cfr
listing
ny
proposal
change
affecting
voting
submitted
prior
final
enactment
among
premature
submissions
attorney
general
consider
see
also
tr
oral
arg
preclearance
required
actually
administering
change
however
use
word
seek
makes
distinction
clear
note
elsewhere
assumed
legislation
partially
covered
state
must
precleared
extent
affects
covered
counties
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
rejected
constitutional
challenge
brought
hasidic
residents
kings
county
new
york
redistricting
plan
enacted
state
legislature
assumed
case
state
plan
subject
act
preclearance
requirements
even
though
state
covered
jurisdiction
kings
counties
covered
act
observed
state
efforts
exempt
counties
act
coverage
proved
unsuccessful
see
new
york
ex
rel
new
york
county
became
necessary
new
york
state
secure
approval
attorney
general
district
district
columbia
reapportionment
statute
insofar
statute
concerned
covered
counties
moreover
decision
constitutional
analysis
relies
fact
redistricting
effort
meant
fulfill
state
obligations
act
etitioners
shown
offered
prove
new
york
attorney
general
authorized
require
see
also
shaw
hunt
evaluating
whether
partially
covered
state
obligations
justified
districting
without
consideration
state
may
subject
preclearance
requirement
decisions
reveal
clear
assumption
preclearance
required
noncovered
state
effects
voting
changes
covered
counties
alone
assumption
department
justice
claims
received
submissions
seeking
preclear
state
laws
seven
currently
partially
covered
california
florida
michigan
new
hampshire
new
york
north
carolina
south
dakota
brief
amicus
curiae
support
juris
statement
see
also
cfr
pt
app
identifying
partially
covered
see
generally
perkins
matthews
noting
particular
interpretation
accepted
least
affected
political
subdivisions
submitted
changes
attorney
general
approval
fact
cases
federal
courts
reveal
numerous
instances
interested
parties
labored
assumption
laws
enacted
require
preclearance
take
effect
covered
jurisdictions
see
shaw
reno
north
carolina
general
assembly
reapportionment
plan
affected
covered
counties
parties
agree
applied
johnson
de
grandy
florida
submitted
statewide
redistricting
law
preclearance
five
counties
covered
haith
martin
supp
ednc
suit
need
preclear
north
carolina
laws
affecting
covered
jurisdictions
without
claim
state
noncovered
jurisdiction
laws
subject
summarily
aff
onslow
county
supp
ednc
covered
north
carolina
county
submitted
changes
preclearance
including
change
required
state
statute
concluded
change
required
preclearance
bound
prior
assumptions
see
brecht
abrahamson
fact
courts
parties
alike
routinely
assumed
need
preclearance
circumstances
presented
supports
reading
finally
find
especially
relevant
attorney
general
also
reads
according
government
attorney
general
consistently
construed
section
require
preclearance
covered
political
subdivision
seek
administer
enactment
partially
covered
state
brief
amicus
curiae
see
also
pp
describing
attorney
general
objections
laws
enacted
north
carolina
south
dakota
partially
covered
subject
certain
limitations
implicated
see
presley
etowah
county
traditionally
afford
substantial
deference
attorney
general
interpretation
light
central
role
formulating
implementing
section
dougherty
county
bd
ed
white
see
naacp
hampton
county
election
doubt
changes
covered
resolved
construction
placed
upon
act
attorney
general
entitled
considerable
deference
perkins
matthews
supra
conclusion
location
polling
places
municipal
boundary
changes
come
within
draws
support
interpretation
followed
attorney
general
administration
statute
attorney
general
interpretation
thus
provides
significant
additional
support
reading
light
section
plain
language
attorney
general
interpretation
effect
conclude
preclearance
requirement
applies
covered
county
nondiscretionary
efforts
implement
voting
change
required
state
law
notwithstanding
fact
state
covered
jurisdiction
accordingly
need
reach
appellants
alternative
claim
district
fact
product
county
discretion
state
also
urges
requiring
preclearance
tread
rights
constitutionally
reserved
state
contends
specifically
withstand
constitutional
scrutiny
interpreted
apply
voting
measures
enacted
designated
historical
wrongdoers
voting
rights
sphere
state
view
california
designated
covered
jurisdiction
laws
subject
preclearance
recognized
act
authorizes
federal
intrusion
sensitive
areas
state
local
policymaking
imposes
substantial
federalism
costs
miller
johnson
act
passed
pursuant
congress
authority
fifteenth
amendment
however
likewise
acknowledged
reconstruction
amendments
nature
contemplate
intrusion
areas
traditionally
reserved
city
rome
recently
observed
respect
congress
power
legislate
fourteenth
amendment
egislation
deters
remedies
constitutional
violations
fall
within
sweep
congress
enforcement
power
even
process
prohibits
conduct
unconstitutional
intrudes
legislative
spheres
autonomy
previously
reserved
city
boerne
flores
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
moreover
specifically
upheld
constitutionality
act
challenge
provision
usurps
powers
reserved
see
south
carolina
katzenbach
see
also
city
rome
supra
katzenbach
require
different
result
held
cover
acts
initiated
noncovered
katzenbach
recognized
jurisdiction
designated
act
may
guard
discriminatory
animus
potentially
harmful
effect
neutral
laws
jurisdiction
city
rome
thus
expressly
reaffirmed
fifteenth
amendment
congress
may
prohibit
voting
practices
discriminatory
effect
see
also
id
upholding
preclearance
requirement
federalism
challenge
moreover
precisely
text
requires
district
district
columbia
may
preclear
proposed
voting
change
concludes
change
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
basis
impermissible
classification
emphasis
supplied
attorney
general
employs
standard
deciding
whether
object
proposed
voting
change
see
cfr
recognizing
congress
constitutional
authority
designate
covered
jurisdictions
guard
changes
give
rise
discriminatory
effect
jurisdictions
find
merit
claim
congress
lacks
fifteenth
amendment
authority
require
federal
approval
implementation
state
law
may
effect
covered
county
section
interpret
today
burdens
state
law
extent
law
affects
voting
jurisdictions
properly
designated
coverage
respect
literacy
tests
fact
act
already
allows
action
state
claims
unconstitutional
least
amendment
act
barring
literacy
tests
nationwide
see
used
ban
tests
covered
jurisdictions
even
tests
enacted
noncovered
state
see
gaston
county
although
state
covered
se
state
literacy
test
within
county
suspended
county
designated
covered
jurisdiction
moreover
literacy
test
may
provide
grounds
designating
county
covered
jurisdiction
notwithstanding
fact
state
whole
covered
state
seeks
bolster
constitutional
argument
noting
partially
covered
like
california
statutory
ability
seek
exemption
act
coverage
section
permits
covered
jurisdiction
seek
declaratory
relief
exempting
jurisdiction
coverage
meets
certain
criteria
even
california
unable
use
bailout
provision
behalf
covered
counties
see
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
noting
new
york
state
sought
exemptions
behalf
covered
counties
advance
state
constitutional
claim
partially
covered
facing
suspension
literacy
tests
covered
counties
faced
dilemma
event
question
county
may
avail
bailout
procedures
short
voting
rights
act
nature
intrudes
state
sovereignty
fifteenth
amendment
permits
intrusion
however
holding
today
adds
nothing
constitutional
moment
burdens
act
imposes
state
also
urges
certain
prior
decisions
require
covered
jurisdiction
exercise
discretion
policy
choice
order
trigger
preclearance
requirements
particular
state
relies
young
fordice
city
monroe
per
curiam
state
however
seeks
place
weight
cases
bear
state
relies
foremost
upon
young
involved
challenge
covered
state
efforts
comply
voting
changes
mandated
national
voters
registration
act
concluded
changes
brought
efforts
compliance
result
discretionary
decisions
state
changes
required
preclearance
made
clear
minor
well
major
changes
require
preclearance
true
even
changes
made
effort
comply
federal
law
long
changes
reflect
policy
choices
made
state
local
officials
citations
omitted
like
district
state
seeks
invoke
young
proposition
policy
choices
covered
jurisdictions
subject
preclearance
requirements
young
however
involved
effort
comply
act
congress
body
enacted
voting
rights
act
congress
retains
authority
curtail
act
protections
subsequent
legislation
alternatively
congress
may
assumed
accounted
policies
underlying
act
rendering
new
law
accordingly
requirement
policy
choices
state
local
officials
trigger
requirements
young
served
merely
isolate
preclearance
changes
wholly
creatures
congress
state
also
seeks
rely
city
monroe
held
preclearance
voting
change
included
statewide
law
empowered
municipality
implement
change
notwithstanding
city
failure
preclear
change
charter
effect
true
city
monroe
municipality
permitted
give
effect
statewide
law
without
need
preclear
effect
city
level
second
preclearance
wholly
unnecessary
however
attorney
general
already
approved
change
since
attorney
general
precleared
statewide
law
monroe
may
implement
accordingly
city
monroe
stand
proposition
covered
jurisdictions
generally
permitted
engage
discretionless
implementation
state
laws
without
seeking
preclearance
change
city
monroe
wished
enforce
already
precleared
finally
note
created
exception
preclearance
requirement
certain
cases
involving
federally
voting
changes
general
rule
voting
changes
crafted
wholly
federal
district
first
instance
require
preclearance
see
connor
johnson
per
curiam
thus
connor
rejected
claim
required
preclearance
electoral
apportionment
scheme
developed
ordered
federal
district
course
litigation
constitutionality
mississippi
voting
plan
ibid
narrow
exception
preclearance
requirement
however
grounded
fact
voting
change
mandated
noncovered
entity
without
room
discretion
part
covered
jurisdiction
rather
exception
grows
largely
concerns
arising
voting
measure
product
federal
specifically
justice
black
noted
dissent
connor
needless
say
completely
agree
holding
majority
reapportionment
plan
formulated
ordered
federal
district
need
approved
attorney
general
district
district
columbia
constitutional
system
strange
indeed
construe
require
actions
federal
stayed
reviewed
attorney
general
district
district
columbia
since
recognized
limitations
connor
exception
mcdaniel
sanchez
district
sustained
constitutional
challenge
county
apportionment
scheme
ordered
implementation
new
plan
county
submitted
holding
new
plan
precleared
district
took
action
noted
requires
whenever
covered
jurisdiction
submits
district
proposal
reflecting
policy
choices
elected
representatives
people
preclearance
requirement
voting
rights
act
applicable
id
requirement
policy
choic
local
jurisdiction
represent
general
rule
covered
jurisdiction
must
exercise
discretion
trigger
preclearance
obligations
mcdaniel
may
best
read
merely
effort
isolate
protect
wholly
plans
preclearance
event
mcdaniel
applies
voting
changes
embodied
federal
orders
need
define
scope
exception
connor
rule
hold
county
obligated
seek
preclearance
giving
effect
voting
changes
required
state
law
accordingly
judgment
district
northern
district
california
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
vicky
lopez
et
al
appellants
monterey
county
et
al
appeal
district
northern
district
california
january
justice
kennedy
chief
justice
joins
concurring
judgment
decide
case
whether
preclearance
requirement
applies
covered
county
nondiscretionary
efforts
implement
voting
change
required
state
law
notwithstanding
fact
state
covered
jurisdiction
ante
think
quite
possible
particularly
light
constitutional
concerns
identified
justice
thomas
phrase
seek
administer
statute
requires
covered
jurisdiction
exercise
discretion
pursue
policy
aims
obligation
preclear
voting
change
arises
see
oxford
english
dictionary
ed
defining
seek
inter
alia
make
one
aim
try
attempt
something
interpretation
draws
support
decisions
connor
johnson
per
curiam
young
fordice
suggest
covered
jurisdictions
need
seek
preclearance
noncovered
entity
requires
implement
specific
voting
changes
see
connor
johnson
supra
holding
covered
jurisdictions
need
preclear
voting
changes
ordered
federal
young
fordice
supra
noting
state
adoption
national
voter
registration
act
registration
system
change
purposes
state
choice
concur
majority
disposition
case
however
clear
state
enactments
requiring
voting
changes
issue
fact
embodied
policy
preferences
determinations
county
see
mcdaniel
sanchez
voting
changes
contained
order
require
preclearance
proposed
covered
jurisdiction
young
fordice
supra
state
changes
made
effort
comply
federal
law
require
preclearance
reflect
exercise
policy
choice
discretion
state
officials
example
state
law
codified
county
merger
municipal
districts
stated
face
enacted
county
behest
cal
ch
act
accordance
request
local
mental
entity
entities
desired
legislative
authority
carry
program
specified
act
circumstances
county
required
seek
preclearance
voting
changes
codified
state
enactments
vicky
lopez
et
al
appellants
monterey
county
et
al
appeal
district
northern
district
california
january
justice
thomas
dissenting
majority
today
interprets
phrase
seek
administer
used
voting
rights
act
require
covered
political
subdivision
seek
federal
approval
law
enacted
noncovered
state
effects
change
respect
voting
covered
political
subdivision
long
covered
political
subdivision
somehow
implements
state
law
think
majority
best
reading
statute
moreover
think
majority
interpretation
constitutionally
doubtful
read
require
preclearance
voting
changes
direct
product
covered
jurisdiction
policy
choices
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
majority
notes
ante
monterey
county
county
covered
jurisdiction
voting
rights
act
state
california
section
voting
rights
act
provides
whenever
covered
state
political
subdivision
shall
enact
seek
administer
voting
qualification
prerequisite
voting
standard
practice
procedure
respect
voting
differs
effect
date
state
subdivision
became
covered
jurisdiction
must
obtain
federal
approval
new
voting
requirement
although
county
elected
municipal
judges
separate
districts
time
became
subject
act
preclearance
requirement
california
law
requires
county
elect
judges
single
judicial
district
appeal
squarely
puts
us
first
time
question
whether
requires
federal
preclearance
noncovered
state
laws
effecting
change
respect
voting
one
covered
political
subdivisions
majority
concludes
county
must
preclear
state
laws
seek
administer
state
districting
scheme
ante
voting
rights
act
define
phrase
seek
administer
majority
construction
phrase
plainly
erroneous
dminister
plausibly
read
isolation
encompass
nondiscretionary
acts
covered
jurisdictions
endeavoring
comply
superior
law
state
ibid
think
majority
reading
statute
best
one
eek
administer
must
read
light
surrounding
terms
section
requires
covered
political
subdivision
obtain
federal
preclearance
whenever
shall
enact
seek
administer
voting
changes
term
administer
best
understood
read
contrast
enact
view
congress
intended
administer
reach
changes
voting
qualifications
prerequisites
standards
practices
procedures
covered
jurisdiction
imposes
way
formal
enactment
words
statute
designed
ensure
covered
jurisdiction
cleverly
avoid
preclearance
requirements
simple
expedient
making
voting
changes
nonlegislative
means
majority
interpretation
appears
render
superfluous
enact
prong
statute
person
denied
right
vote
failure
comply
covered
jurisdiction
enactment
affecting
voting
prohibits
absent
federal
preclearance
unless
jurisdiction
administering
enacted
laws
majority
explanation
seek
modifies
administer
temporal
distinction
ante
unsatisfactory
ignores
shall
modifies
enact
also
temporal
limitation
prongs
statute
surprisingly
written
terms
simple
futurity
given
prophylactic
nature
interpretation
statutory
phrase
also
accurately
reflects
section
purpose
previously
recognized
enacted
response
common
practice
jurisdictions
staying
one
step
ahead
federal
courts
passing
new
discriminatory
voting
laws
soon
old
ones
struck
congress
therefore
decided
shift
advantage
time
inertia
perpetrators
evil
victim
beer
quoting
pp
see
also
reno
bossier
parish
school
bd
quoting
beer
miller
johnson
follows
congress
intended
subject
federal
preclearance
policy
decisions
made
jurisdictions
found
perpetrators
evil
means
coverage
formula
majority
describes
ante
california
never
found
satisfy
coverage
test
therefore
one
perpetrators
designed
thwart
therefore
see
reason
believe
congress
intended
require
federal
approval
state
policy
choices
government
amicus
curiae
supporting
appellants
suggests
state
enacted
district
consolidation
legislation
county
suggestion
implying
state
judicial
district
consolidation
statutes
product
county
policy
choices
brief
amicus
curiae
recognize
mcdaniel
sanchez
required
preclearance
voting
change
covered
jurisdiction
plan
ordered
submitted
reflected
policy
choices
covered
jurisdiction
even
though
decided
connor
johnson
per
curiam
federal
voting
changes
need
precleared
stated
construe
congressional
mandate
requires
whenever
covered
jurisdiction
submits
proposal
reflecting
policy
choices
elected
representatives
people
preclearance
requirement
voting
rights
act
applicable
id
although
holding
mcdaniel
obviously
consistent
text
interpret
least
appears
consistent
policy
said
underlies
see
beer
supra
regardless
whether
legislative
product
noncovered
jurisdiction
ever
subject
preclearance
requirement
demonstrated
state
law
product
collusion
state
local
governments
record
case
support
claim
appellants
make
argument
either
complaint
filed
district
briefs
ii
moreover
reading
avoids
majority
constitutionally
doubtful
interpretation
statute
susceptible
two
constructions
one
grave
doubtful
constitutional
questions
arise
questions
avoided
duty
adopt
latter
ex
rel
attorney
general
delaware
hudson
see
also
feltner
columbia
pictures
television
scalia
concurring
judgment
section
unique
requirement
exacts
significant
federalism
costs
recognized
one
occasion
see
bossier
parish
miller
johnson
see
also
city
rome
powell
dissenting
sheffield
bd
stevens
dissenting
south
carolina
katzenbach
black
concurring
dissenting
section
interference
state
sovereignty
quite
drastic
covered
political
subdivisions
may
give
effect
policy
choices
affecting
voting
without
first
obtaining
federal
government
approval
justice
powell
wrote
city
rome
section
encroachment
especially
troubling
destroys
local
control
means
one
central
values
polity
despite
serious
undeniable
costs
twice
upheld
preclearance
requirement
constitutional
exercise
congress
fifteenth
amendment
enforcement
power
first
katzenbach
city
rome
cases
compared
congress
fifteenth
amendment
enforcement
power
broad
authority
necessary
proper
clause
see
city
rome
supra
katzenbach
supra
taken
great
care
emphasize
congress
enforcement
power
remedial
nature
see
city
boerne
flores
katzenbach
supra
remedy
without
wrong
essential
holdings
katzenbach
city
rome
conclusion
congress
remedying
effects
prior
intentional
racial
discrimination
cases
required
congress
evidence
jurisdiction
burdened
preclearance
obligations
actually
engaged
intentional
discrimination
katzenbach
recognized
congress
evidence
actual
voting
discrimination
jurisdictions
jurisdictions
two
characteristics
present
depressed
voter
turnout
use
test
device
concluded
permissible
congress
impose
preclearance
requirements
political
subdivisions
congress
fragmentary
evidence
voting
discrimination
id
two
conditions
incorporated
act
coverage
formula
found
exist
least
absence
proof
jurisdictions
free
substantial
voting
discrimination
recent
years
id
also
thought
quite
important
act
provide
termination
special
statutory
coverage
behest
political
subdivisions
danger
substantial
voting
discrimination
ha
materialized
preceding
five
years
id
city
rome
rejected
city
argument
employed
discriminatory
practices
relevant
period
unconstitutional
applied
thought
electoral
changes
jurisdictions
demonstrable
history
racial
discrimination
voting
create
risk
purposeful
discrimination
proper
congress
prohibit
changes
discriminatory
impact
emphasis
added
omitted
majority
find
merit
claim
congress
lacks
fifteenth
amendment
authority
require
federal
approval
implementation
state
law
may
discriminatory
effect
covered
county
ante
view
overlooks
warning
city
boerne
appropriateness
remedial
measures
must
considered
light
evil
presented
see
also
city
rome
supra
rehnquist
dissenting
legislative
finding
state
california
ever
intentionally
discriminated
basis
race
color
ethnicity
respect
voting
state
found
run
afoul
act
overbroad
coverage
formula
recognized
city
boerne
reventive
measures
prohibiting
certain
types
laws
may
appropriate
reason
believe
many
laws
affected
congressional
enactment
likelihood
unconstitutional
see
reason
think
california
laws
discriminate
way
voting
state
laws
anything
constitutional
therefore
doubt
extended
require
preclearance
state
enactments
remain
consistent
constitution
moreover
plain
majority
reading
raises
new
levels
federalism
costs
statute
imposes
preclearance
state
voting
law
denied
sought
covered
political
subdivision
state
unable
develop
consistent
statewide
voting
policy
laws
enforceable
noncovered
subdivisions
covered
subdivision
majority
reading
noncovered
forced
rely
upon
covered
political
subdivisions
defend
interests
federal
government
subdivision
may
know
state
interest
may
simply
disagree
state
therefore
choose
defend
vigorously
state
policy
choices
federal
government
indeed
case
county
represented
concurs
essential
arguments
appellants
state
law
affecting
voting
insofar
law
may
affect
elections
within
covered
jurisdiction
must
precleared
brief
appellee
monterey
county
majority
attempts
bolster
argument
suggesting
requiring
county
submit
state
laws
preclearance
unusual
act
suspension
literacy
tests
covered
jurisdictions
points
instances
literacy
tests
required
laws
noncovered
jurisdictions
including
california
ante
think
however
suspension
tests
preclearance
remedy
compared
literacy
test
history
notorious
means
deny
abridge
voting
rights
racial
grounds
katzenbach
black
concurring
dissenting
literacy
tests
unfairly
administered
whites
given
easy
questions
blacks
given
difficult
questions
number
bubbles
soap
bar
news
contained
copy
peking
daily
meaning
obscure
passages
state
constitutions
definition
terms
habeas
corpus
thernstrom
whose
votes
count
affirmative
action
minority
voting
rights
upheld
constitutionality
suspension
provision
voting
rights
act
katzenbach
indicated
tests
actually
employed
disenfranchise
black
voters
later
oregon
mitchell
upheld
national
ban
use
tests
even
though
recognized
facially
unconstitutional
proper
means
preventing
purposeful
discrimination
application
tests
remedying
prior
constitutional
violations
state
local
governments
education
minorities
congress
suspension
tests
focused
remedy
directed
one
particular
prerequisite
voting
contrast
preclearance
requirement
presumes
voting
change
matter
innocuous
invalid
prevents
enforcement
federal
government
gives
approval
interpret
require
preclearance
covered
jurisdiction
changes
affecting
voting
qualifications
prerequisites
standards
practices
procedures
whether
made
formal
enactment
otherwise
view
best
interpretation
statute
avoids
grave
constitutional
concerns
majority
contrary
interpretation
raises
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
county
ordinance
adopted
october
consolidated
two
justice
districts
app
juris
statement
november
county
ordinance
consolidated
another
two
justice
districts
id
county
ordinance
adopted
january
merged
three
justice
districts
judicial
districts
id
finally
county
ordinance
adopted
september
added
new
justice
district
id
footnotes
convenience
use
shorthand
voting
change
change
respect
voting
throughout
adhere
view
changes
affecting
voting
covered
voting
rights
act
sections
properly
understood
see
holder
hall
opinion
concurring
judgment
even
agree
majority
interpretation
statute
convinced
county
implements
state
districting
laws
simply
administering
elections
majority
apparently
believes
recognize
interpreted
reach
entities
obviously
fall
within
definition
covered
state
political
subdivision
prior
cases
example
sheffield
bd
held
although
city
sheffield
alabama
political
subdivision
act
nevertheless
subject
preclearance
requirements
political
unit
covered
state
whether
sheffield
correct
original
matter
approach
coverage
announced
simply
implicated
case
appellants
argue
approach
coverage
questions
believe
reasoning
sheffield
supports
morse
republican
party
judgment
extended
reach
activities
political
parties
covered
adhere
views
expressed
dissent
case
stands
proposition
purposes
preclearance
state
instances
coextensive
constitutional
doctrine
state
action
thomas
dissenting
course
case
requires
us
interpret
phrase
seek
administer
state
political
subdivision
language
somewhat
similar
reasons
even
agreed
majority
interpretation
statute
still
affirm
district
dismissal
appellants
first
amended
complaint
ask
county
ordered
preclear
state
laws
coverage
question
complaint
raised
whether
county
antecedent
consolidation
ordinances
needed
precleared
app
juris
statement
fifteenth
amendment
provides
section
right
citizens
vote
shall
denied
abridged
state
account
race
color
previous
condition
servitude
section
congress
shall
power
enforce
article
appropriate
legislation
although
city
boerne
involved
fourteenth
amendment
enforcement
power
always
treated
nature
enforcement
powers
conferred
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendments
coextensive
see
city
boerne
james
bowman