Perkins v. Matthews

1971-01-14

Headline: Voting changes in a Mississippi city blocked: Court limits Canton from enforcing polling-place moves, annexations, or at-large elections without prior federal approval, increasing federal control over local voting changes.

Holding: In this case the Court held that Canton’s moves of polling places, municipal annexations, and switch to at-large alderman elections were covered by Section 5 and could not be enforced without prior federal approval.

Real World Impact:

Requires covered localities to seek federal approval before changing polling places.
Gives courts authority to enjoin elections until Section 5 compliance is shown.
May delay or force new local elections if federal approval is not obtained.

Topics: voting rules, polling places, municipal annexations, at-large elections, federal approval

Summary

Background

A group of voters and candidates in Canton, Mississippi challenged three changes the city used in its 1969 elections: moving several polling places, annexing adjacent areas that changed who could vote, and switching alderman elections from wards to at-large. They sued in federal court seeking to stop the elections, saying the city never submitted those changes for review as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Reasoning

The Court considered only whether those changes were "covered" by Section 5 and therefore required prior federal scrutiny, not whether the changes were actually discriminatory. Relying on precedent, the Court held that polling-place relocations, boundary annexations that alter the electorate, and the move to at-large elections are all "standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting" different from those in effect on November 1, 1964, and thus fall within Section 5. The Court reversed the three-judge district court, found the record sufficient to decide coverage, and instructed the lower court to enjoin enforcement of the changes until the city shows compliance with Section 5.

Real world impact

The decision means covered cities and local officials must seek federal approval before implementing similar changes or risk injunctions. The Court left questions about actual discriminatory purpose or effect for the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court also left the precise remedy—whether to order new elections or other relief—to the district court to decide after hearing both sides.

Dissents or concurrances

A strong dissent argued Section 5 is an unconstitutional federal overreach that needlessly burdens local government; another Justice agreed with requiring preclearance for polling places but questioned applying Section 5 to annexations and the ward/at-large issue.