Young v. Fordice
Headline: Voting registration changes aimed at complying with a new federal registration law must get preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, the Court rules, forcing Mississippi to seek federal approval before using those procedures.
Holding:
- Requires covered states to seek federal preclearance for discretionary voter-registration procedures.
- Stops Mississippi from using unprecleared registration changes until approval or court orders.
- Makes other covered jurisdictions submit NVRA-related administrative choices for Voting Rights Act review.
Summary
Background
Mississippi, state election officials, four private citizens, and the United States disputed changes Mississippi made to register voters after a new federal law (the NVRA) took effect on January 1, 1995. Mississippi first used a short-lived "Provisional Plan" that would have registered voters for both federal and state elections, but the State Legislature tabled the bill needed to make that plan lawful on January 25. About 4,000 people registered under the Provisional Plan between January 1 and February 10. The Justice Department wrote on February 1 that it “did not interpose any objection” to Mississippi’s submitted package, but Mississippi then adopted a "New System" on February 10 that applied the NVRA changes only to federal elections. The Department later said its February 1 letter did not preclear a dual registration-and-purge system. Private citizens sued on April 20, 1995; the District Court granted summary judgment for Mississippi, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance of Mississippi’s changes. It held that Section 5 does require preclearance when a new practice or procedure is meaningfully different from the previous system. Even changes made to follow federal law must be precleared if they reflect policy choices by state officials. The Court found the Provisional Plan was not “in force or effect,” so it did not become the legal baseline. The Attorney General’s February 1 letter was ambiguous and did not cover the New System. Because the New System contained discretionary administrative choices different from the Old System, preclearance was required.
Real world impact
Mississippi must seek federal preclearance for the contested registration procedures. The District Court’s ruling is reversed and the case remanded so a court can bar further use of unprecleared changes and decide remedies. The decision makes clear that covered jurisdictions must submit discretionary voter-registration practices for federal review, though this ruling does not finally decide whether those practices are unlawful.
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?