McCain v. Lybrand
Headline: Court holds federal clearance of a 1971 amendment does not ratify unsubmitted 1966 election changes, keeping those earlier county rules from taking effect without proper federal review and protection for black voters.
Holding: The 1966 election changes were not approved and remain subject to the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirement.
- Requires separate federal approval for distinct election-rule changes.
- Prevents using later amendments to validate earlier unsubmitted election changes.
- Protects black voters from unapproved changes until federal review is complete.
Summary
Background
Black voters in Edgefield County, South Carolina, challenged the county’s method of electing its County Council. In 1966 the State adopted a new county government and an at-large voting system with residency districts; that 1966 law was never sent for required federal approval. In 1971 the State increased the number of districts and submitted that 1971 amendment to the Attorney General, supplying the 1966 statute and other information when asked.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the Attorney General’s statement that he “does not interpose any objections” to the 1971 amendment should be read as approving the earlier 1966 changes that had never been submitted. The Court said no. It explained that the federal approval rule applies only to the specific changes a jurisdiction actually and clearly submits. The Attorney General had not been asked to evaluate whether the 1966 enactment itself required approval, did not receive the information needed to judge the 1966 changes against pre-1964 practices, and therefore could not be treated as having approved those earlier changes.
Real world impact
The decision means covered jurisdictions cannot avoid the duty to obtain federal approval for distinct election changes by later submitting only some amendments. The 1966 provisions remain ineffective under the Voting Rights Act until the State properly submits and the Attorney General or appropriate court clears them. The ruling sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices agreed with the Court’s outcome and entered separate concurring views in the judgment, but the opinion reverses the District Court’s broader conclusion that the 1966 changes were implicitly approved.
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?