266
OCTOBER TERM, 1998
Syllabus
appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of california
No. 97-1396. Argued November 2, 1998—Decided January 20, 1999
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires designated States and political subdivisions to obtain federal preclearance—either from the Attorney General or from the District Court for the District of Columbia—before giving effect to changes in their voting laws. Monterey County (County), a jurisdiction that is "covered" by § 5, enacted a series of ordinances effecting changes in the method for electing County judges. Appellants, Hispanic voters residing in the County, filed suit, alleging that the County had failed to fulfill its § 5 obligation to pre-clear these changes. See Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S. 9. The three-judge District Court ultimately dismissed the complaint on the ground that California, which is not covered by § 5, had also passed legislation requiring the very voting changes challenged by appellants. The County need not seek federal approval before giving effect to these changes, the court reasoned, because California is not subject to § 5 and the County was merely implementing a California law without exercising any independent discretion.
Held: The Act's preclearance requirements apply to measures mandated by a noncovered State to the extent that these measures will effect a voting change in a covered county. Accordingly, Monterey County is obligated to seek preclearance under § 5 before giving effect to voting changes required by California law. Pp. 277-287.
(a) Section 5's plain language requiring federal preclearance "when-ever a [covered jurisdiction] shall enact or seek to administer any voting" change provides the most compelling support for the conclusion that the preclearance requirement applies to a covered county's non-discretionary efforts to implement a voting change required by state law, notwithstanding the fact that the State is not itself a covered jurisdiction. The "seek[s] to administer" phrase provides no indication that Congress intended to limit preclearance obligations to covered jurisdictions' discretionary actions. To the contrary, dictionaries consistently define "administer" in purely nondiscretionary terms. The State's view that "administer" is intended to capture a covered jurisdiction's non-legislative, executive initiatives poses no barrier to the view that "ad-minister" also encompasses nondiscretionary acts by covered jurisdictions endeavoring to comply with their States' superior law. Nor does
Page: Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007