City of Lockhart v. United States

Background

The City of Lockhart, Texas, is a community of just under 8,000 people. Nearly 47% of the population were Mexican‑American, but fewer than 30% of registered voters were Mexican‑American by 1977. In 1973 the city replaced a three‑member commission with a five‑member council, added two seats, kept at‑large numbered‑post elections, and introduced staggered two‑year terms. Officials never obtained preclearance under Section 5 after Texas became covered. Four Mexican‑American residents, including Alfred Cano, sued and a federal district court enjoined elections pending review.

Reasoning

The core question was whether Section 5 applied to the whole 1973 plan and whether the changes made minority voters worse off. The Court held the entire charter change is subject to preclearance and that the proper baseline is the system actually in effect on November 1, 1972. Relying on Beer, the majority applied a retrogression test — asking whether the new plan reduced minority voting strength compared to the prior practice. The Court concluded that the continued use of numbered posts and the introduction of staggered terms did not cause retrogression, citing the long history of numbered posts, turnout data, and the election of a Mexican‑American candidate in 1978. It found the district court’s finding of discriminatory effect clearly erroneous, vacated that judgment, and remanded.

Real world impact

The ruling means Lockhart’s 1973 plan can be evaluated under the retrogression standard and lets further review proceed. It affects Mexican‑American voters in Lockhart and guides other covered jurisdictions to compare new plans to practices in force on November 1, 1972. The decision indicates that not every change that preserves an unequal status quo will be blocked under Section 5; questions about discriminatory purpose remain for later proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented in part, arguing Section 5 forbids procedures that perpetuate past discrimination even if they do not worsen it. Justice Blackmun would have affirmed the district court’s factual finding or remanded to consider the 1982 amendments; Justice White also dissented.