Blanding v. DuBose
Headline: Voting rule clarified: Court limits counties’ ability to treat a delayed federal response as approval, holding Sumter County’s letter was a reconsideration request and not a new preclearance submission.
Holding: The Court held that Sumter County’s June 1979 letter reporting referendum results was a request for reconsideration, not a new preclearance submission, so the county could not treat the Attorney General’s delay as approval.
- Blocks Sumter County from pressing forward with at-large elections based on an alleged 60-day lapse.
- Clarifies that referendum results can be a reconsideration request, not a new submission.
- Limits counties’ ability to restart the Attorney General’s 60-day review by readopting changes.
Summary
Background
Citizens of Sumter County appealed after a District Court allowed the county to hold at-large County Council elections. In 1967 the county’s at-large method had been adopted without federal preclearance. The Attorney General objected to at-large elections in 1976. After a 1978 referendum endorsed at-large voting, Sumter County sent a June 1979 letter to the Attorney General reporting the referendum results and asking whether it was a new submission or a request to reconsider the earlier objection.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the June 1979 letter restarted the 60-day preclearance clock or simply asked the Attorney General to reconsider his earlier objection. The Court held the letter was a reconsideration request because it only presented referendum results about an election method already submitted and previously objected to. The Court relied on the Voting Rights Act regulations and administrative practice allowing reconsideration requests, even when untimely, and gave deference to the Attorney General’s reasonable interpretation.
Real world impact
The decision prevents a local government from treating a paused or delayed response by the Attorney General as automatic approval of a previously objected-to voting method. Sumter County cannot proceed on the theory that the 60-day period restarted. The ruling also reduces the incentive for jurisdictions to readopt contested rules just to force a new 60-day review.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Powell, concurred but warned that the Voting Rights Act process can be burdensome for local governments and expressed concern about federal control over local election decisions.
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?