Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White
Headline: Court requires covered local school boards to seek federal preapproval for rules forcing employees to take unpaid leave while running for office, expanding preclearance to such personnel policies and affecting candidates and voters.
Holding:
- Requires covered local school boards to submit candidate-leave rules for federal preapproval.
- Makes it harder for districts to enforce unpaid-campaign leave without federal sign-off.
- Protects potential candidates and voters by prompting federal review of barriers to candidacy.
Summary
Background
A Black assistant school official in Dougherty County, Georgia, ran for the State House. Less than a month after he announced his candidacy, the county school board adopted Rule 58, which forced any employee who qualified as a candidate to take unpaid leave. The employee lost substantial pay and sued, arguing the Rule should have been submitted for review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before the board put it into effect. A federal district court enjoined the Rule pending that review.
Reasoning
The Court asked two plain questions: whether a mandatory unpaid-leave rule for employee candidates is a change “with respect to voting,” and whether a local school board is a political unit covered by Section 5. Relying on earlier decisions and the Attorney General’s regulations, the Court said Section 5 must be read broadly. It held that rules that create financial or other obstacles to candidacy are voting-related changes with a potential for discrimination and therefore must be submitted for federal preclearance. The Court also held a county school board in a covered State is a political subdivision for these purposes.
Real world impact
The ruling means covered local entities cannot enforce personnel rules that burden candidates without first getting federal approval. It shifts the review to the Attorney General or a special federal court before such rules take effect. The Court did not decide whether Rule 58 was actually motivated by discrimination; it decided only that the Rule had the potential to discriminate and therefore required preclearance. The opinion notes most submissions receive approval and objections are rare.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Powell, the Chief Justice, and Rehnquist dissented, arguing the statute does not reach neutral personnel rules or school boards that do not run elections. Justice Stevens concurred but said he disagreed with the statute’s construction while following precedent.
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?