Morris v. Gressette

Background

South Carolina passed a law to redraw its State Senate districts and submitted the plan to the Attorney General under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Attorney General initially objected to an earlier plan, a federal district court found a new plan constitutionally acceptable, and the Attorney General declined to object within the 60‑day period because he deferred to that court’s decision. Later, after a separate court ordered him to decide, the Attorney General interposed a belated objection.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether courts may review the Attorney General’s failure to make a timely objection under section 5. The majority concluded that Congress intended the 60‑day preclearance mechanism to give covered jurisdictions a quick path to implement changes when the Attorney General does not object, and that allowing judicial review of the Attorney General’s inaction would extend the extraordinary federal delay Congress designed to end. The Court therefore held the late (nunc pro tunc) objection invalid and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

Real world impact

Because the belated objection was ruled ineffective, South Carolina was allowed to implement the senate reapportionment plan. The decision prevents courts from overturning the Attorney General’s failure to object under section 5 and means that voting changes submitted to the Department of Justice can take effect when no timely objection is entered. The ruling preserves the statutory 60‑day cutoff as the point after which states may proceed pending normal constitutional challenges.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Marshall and Blackmun dissented, arguing the Attorney General has a statutory duty to make an independent merits decision and that judicial review is necessary to prevent unlawful or arbitrary nonenforcement that can harm minority voters.