City of Rome v. United States

1980-06-09

Headline: Voting Rights Act upheld; court bars Rome’s 1966 election changes and several annexations without federal preclearance, making it harder for the city to implement new voting rules and limiting local bailout options.

Holding: The Court held that the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirement applies to Rome, refused the city’s bailout claim, and affirmed the Attorney General’s disapproval of certain 1966 electoral changes and annexations because they would dilute Negro voting strength.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Rome from using the 1966 election changes without federal approval.
Leaves 13 annexations blocked for City Commission elections without preclearance.
Allows only the State, not individual cities, to seek bailout from preclearance.

Topics: voting rules, annexation and elections, preclearance under Voting Rights Act, racial bloc voting

Summary

Background

The city of Rome, Georgia, sued the United States and the Attorney General after the Attorney General refused to preclear several 1966 electoral changes (majority‑runoff voting, numbered posts, staggered terms, and residency rules) and 13 of 60 annexations; Rome had not sought preclearance earlier. A three‑judge District Court found racial bloc voting, ruled the city had not proved lack of discriminatory effect, and denied relief. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Voting Rights Act applied and whether the city could seek a separate bailout.

Reasoning

The Court held Rome cannot obtain a separate bailout because the statute and legislative history limit bailout to a covered State or to political subdivisions designated separately, not to subdivisions inside a covered State. The Court also agreed the Attorney General may restart the 60‑day reconsideration clock when the submitting jurisdiction supplements its request. Relying on precedent, the Court concluded Congress may bar voting changes that have a discriminatory effect under the Fifteenth Amendment. The District Court’s factual findings of racial bloc voting and vote dilution were not clearly erroneous, so the Attorney General’s refusals were affirmed.

Real world impact

Rome must either hold elections under its pre‑1964 rules or obtain federal preclearance to use the challenged changes; some annexations remain blocked for City Commission elections. Municipalities in covered States cannot seek separate bailout from Section 5; only the State can. Officials who delay preclearance risk forfeiting the right to implement voting changes and may have to alter residency or ward arrangements to obtain approval.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Blackmun and Stevens joined the judgment but noted remedies and emphasized the statewide nature of bailout; Blackmun suggested specific fixes to avoid jurisdictional anomalies. Justices Powell and Rehnquist dissented, arguing Rome met bailout criteria and that applying Section 5 here unduly intrudes on local autonomy and exceeds congressional power.