|
Volume 5, Number 3
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER JUDICIAL ELECTIONS ARE COVERED BY SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
On January 18, 1991, the Supreme Court accepted for review cases from the states of Louisiana and Texas that address whether the effects test of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, applies to the election of judges.
In 1982, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to establish that local election practices can be found to be discriminatory if the results of such practices have a negative impact on minority voters. Congress achieved this result by adding an effects test to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The relevant part of section 2 as amended in 1982 provides:
"No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color...
A violation ... is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political sub division are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens ... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice ......
The Texas cases
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Mattox was initially filed on July 11, 1988, on behalf of Mexican American and African American voters, and on February 28, 1989, the district court granted the intervention of the Houston Lawyers' Association and rive African American voters, Houston Lawyers' Association v. Mat tox. The plaintiffs alleged that the Texas laws "providing for county-wide, at-large election of judges of the trial court of general jurisdiction" discriminated against blacks and Hispanics in nine counties, and that "the imposition of a single-member system was necessary to prevent dilution of black and Hispanic voting strength." The nine metropolitan counties challenged, Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant, Travis, Lubbock, Mid land, Ector, and Jefferson, included 172 (44 percent) of the state's then 375 district judges.
The district court judge rejected LULAC's claims of violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Con stitution, but found that the Texas laws did have the unintended result of diluting minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982. The district court divided the nine counties into sub -districts, and ordered an election in those new districts for May 5, 1990. The state appealed and the Fifth Cir cuit stayed the district court's order.
A panel of the Fifth Circuit heard the case on April 30, and handed down an opinion on May 11. The panel ruled that judges were indeed representatives of the people and thus covered by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but that "the elections of trial judges were not subject to voter-strength dilution challenges be cause their offices are single-member ones; and there is no such thing as a 'share' of a single-member office." Four days later, the Fifth Circuit ordered rehearing of the appeal en banc.
  
| 
