Hathorn v. Lovorn

Background

A group of Winston County, Mississippi voters sued local officials to enforce a 1964 state law that would change how the county’s five-member school board is chosen and require runoff elections. The state chancery court first set procedures and ordered the election, then the Attorney General objected to the runoff under the Voting Rights Act. The Mississippi Supreme Court later ordered the election to go forward without ensuring federal clearance.

Reasoning

The central question was whether state courts may decide if a proposed change in voting procedures needs approval under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and whether they may order an election before that approval. The Supreme Court said state courts can decide such questions when they arise in state cases and have a duty to avoid ordering relief that would violate federal law. Because the change here is subject to section 5, the Court held the Mississippi courts must withhold further implementation until the parties demonstrate compliance with the Act, and it reversed the state high court’s judgment.

Real world impact

In covered jurisdictions, state judges must check for federal preclearance—either approval by the Attorney General or a federal court declaratory judgment—before enforcing new election procedures. The Court left questions about what remedy is appropriate to the federal district court handling a separate suit, so the practical outcome may depend on that court’s decisions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, warning that Congress intended enforcement to be handled in federal courts and that allowing state courts to decide could create conflicting rulings and procedural confusion.