Lopez v. Monterey County

1999-01-20

Headline: Voting Rights Act preclearance applies when a state law changes voting in a covered county, so the county must seek federal approval before enforcing state-mandated election changes.

Holding: The Court holds that a county covered by the Voting Rights Act must obtain federal preclearance before implementing any state law that effects a change in voting within that covered county.

Real World Impact:

Requires covered counties to seek federal approval before enforcing state laws that change voting.
Makes state-mandated election changes subject to federal review in covered jurisdictions.
Reverses the district court and sends the case back for further proceedings.

Topics: voting rights, preclearance, state election laws, covered jurisdictions

Summary

Background

Monterey County, a county designated as "covered" under the Voting Rights Act, consolidated many local judicial districts between 1972 and 1983. California, which is not designated as covered, passed laws that mirrored or codified those consolidations. Hispanic voters sued, arguing the county never obtained the federal approval called for by §5 of the Act before those voting changes took effect. A federal district court held the county did not need approval because the changes came from state law. The case reached this Court to decide if that court was right.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a covered county "seeks to administer" a state law that changes voting and therefore must get federal preclearance (federal approval) under §5. The Court examined the statute's language, dictionary definitions, prior cases, and the Justice Department's long-standing practice. It concluded that §5 reaches measures that will change voting in a covered county even if those measures originate in a noncovered State. Because the county implemented state laws that had the effect of changing voting, the county was required to seek federal preclearance. The Court reversed the district court and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, covered counties must seek federal approval before putting into effect state laws that change how votes are cast or counted within the county. The ruling affects how partially covered States and their covered counties coordinate election changes. The decision does not resolve every related issue; it sends the matter back for the lower courts to apply the ruling to these facts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy joined the judgment but warned the Court need not decide the full scope of nondiscretionary implementation. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing §5 should cover only policy choices made by covered jurisdictions and expressing federalism concerns.