Chisom v. Roemer
Headline: Voting rights law expanded to cover state judicial elections; Court held the 1982 'results' test applies to judicial races, allowing minority voters to challenge at-large judicial voting practices that dilute their influence.
Holding: The coverage of Section 2 as amended in 1982 is coextensive with pre-1982 coverage and includes state judicial elections, so the amended "results" test applies to judicial races.
- Allows minority voters to challenge at-large judicial elections that dilute their voting power.
- Permits Section 2 lawsuits over judicial election structures like multimember districts.
- Remands cases for further fact-finding; remedies and proof rules not decided here.
Summary
Background
About 135,000 Black registered voters in New Orleans sued Louisiana officials over the way two Louisiana Supreme Court justices are elected from a four-parish, multimember district. They say the at-large system from the New Orleans area reduces Black voters’ ability to elect candidates they prefer. Lower courts split on the issue: a trial court questioned whether judges count as “representatives,” a Fifth Circuit panel and then an en banc panel reached different conclusions, and the United States intervened in support of the voters.
Reasoning
The narrow question the Court decided was whether the 1982 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the so-called "results" test that looks at whether practices deny or abridge voting rights in effect, not just by intent — applies to state judicial elections. The Court held yes: the amended law’s coverage is at least as broad as before 1982 and includes judicial elections. The majority relied on the statute’s plain language, the Act’s definition of “vote,” Congress’ effort to broaden protection, the fact Section 5 already covers judicial elections, and the need to apply the Section 2 “totality of circumstances” inquiry. The Court made clear it was deciding statutory scope only, not proof requirements, remedies, or constitutional claims.
Real world impact
The ruling allows Section 2 challenges to at-large or multimember judicial election systems that plaintiffs say dilute minority voting strength. It sends the cases back to lower courts for factual hearings under Section 2’s standards. The opinion does not decide how plaintiffs must prove a violation or what remedies are appropriate, so outcomes will depend on later proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy) dissented, arguing the ordinary meaning of "representatives" excludes judges, warning about manageability without a one-person/one-vote baseline, and would have left dilution claims for judges unavailable.
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?