Berry v. Doles
Headline: Peach County’s staggered commissioner terms must get federal approval; Court orders county officials to seek preapproval within 30 days and allows challengers to seek a new 1978 election if denied.
Holding:
- Requires Peach County officials to seek federal approval within 30 days.
- Leaves 1976 election results intact for now, but may force a new 1978 election.
- Gives challengers a path to ask courts to shorten current commissioners' terms.
Summary
Background
In 1968 Georgia changed when Peach County elects its three commissioners so the at-large seat would serve a two-year term in 1968 and later four-year terms. That change was never submitted for the federal approval required by the Voting Rights Act. Four days before the 1976 primary, people challenging the change sued. A single judge let the 1976 election proceed; a three-judge court later enjoined future use of the 1968 law but refused to set aside the 1976 results as “technical” and showing no apparent discriminatory purpose or effect.
Reasoning
The Court addressed what remedy was appropriate for failing to obtain the required federal approval. It held that the county had violated the Act and adopted the Justice Department’s suggestion. The Court instructed the District Court to give Peach County officials 30 days to apply for federal approval. If approval is granted, the dispute ends. If approval is denied, the challengers may renew a request in district court for a simultaneous election of all three seats in 1978.
Real world impact
The ruling requires Peach County officials to seek federal clearance promptly. The 1976 election results remain in place for now, but they could be undone if federal approval is denied and a court orders a new 1978 election. The factual question whether the change is racially discriminatory is left to the designated federal reviewers.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall) urged that a denied preclearance should lead to a new 1978 election to avoid rewarding noncompliance; Justice Powell concurred in the judgment; Justice Rehnquist (joined by Stevens) dissented, objecting to relief not requested by the parties.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?