National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Hampton County Election Commission
Headline: Court reverses lower court and rules that changes to election filing periods and election dates must get federal preclearance, forcing local officials to seek approval from the Attorney General before implementation.
Holding: The Court held that changing the candidate filing period and rescheduling the election were voting changes covered by the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 and therefore required preclearance by the Attorney General before implementation.
- Requires covered localities to get Attorney General preclearance for election date or filing-period changes.
- Elections held without preclearance can be set aside if approval is not obtained.
- Officials must delay implementing scheduling changes until federal review is complete.
Summary
Background
Hampton County, South Carolina, changed how its school boards would be chosen. The State passed two laws in 1982: one creating an at-large county board with a November election and another abolishing that board and creating separate district trustee elections with an August filing period and a November election. The State submitted the second law to the Attorney General late. County officials opened the August filing period and later scheduled a March election after the Attorney General objected and then withdrew his objection. Civil rights groups and county residents sued, arguing these scheduling and filing actions fell under the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance rule. A three-judge District Court held there was no violation; the Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether opening the August filing period and setting a March election date were “changes” that required preclearance under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5. The Court held they were. It explained that shifting the timing of candidate filing and moving an election can reduce participation and deter candidates, so such actions have the potential for discrimination and cannot be treated as merely ministerial. The Court gave weight to the Attorney General’s longstanding interpretation and Department of Justice regulations. It reversed the District Court and directed that the changes be submitted for preclearance within 30 days, with possible setting aside of the March election if approval is not obtained.
Real world impact
Covered jurisdictions must seek preclearance before implementing scheduling changes that affect filing periods or election dates. Local officials who act before preclearance risk having election results voided if approval is denied. The opinion leaves factual findings about discriminatory effect to the Attorney General or the three-judge court, not to the Supreme Court, so the ruling requires process compliance rather than deciding the ultimate merits of discrimination claims.
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?