City of Monroe v. United States

1997-11-17

Headline: Court allows Georgia city to use precleared statewide majority-vote default, reversing lower court and permitting Monroe to hold majority-based mayoral elections despite earlier unprecleared charter changes.

Holding: The Court reverses the lower court, holding that Georgia’s precleared 1968 election code default majority-vote rule applies to Monroe, so Monroe may implement majority mayoral elections.

Real World Impact:

Allows Monroe to hold mayoral elections requiring a majority of votes.
Allows Georgia cities without explicit plurality charters to use the majority default.

Topics: voting rules, preclearance under Voting Rights Act, mayoral elections, municipal law

Summary

Background

This case is a fight between the United States and the city of Monroe, Georgia, about how Monroe elects its mayor. Before 1966 Monroe’s charter was silent on plurality versus majority rules and the city used plurality in practice. In 1966 the state amended Monroe’s charter to require majority voting but did not seek preclearance (the Attorney General’s approval required by the Voting Rights Act). In 1968 the State adopted a Municipal Election Code that deferred to explicit municipal plurality rules but otherwise set a statewide default requiring majority votes; the Attorney General precleared that default provision.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Attorney General’s 1968 preclearance of the statewide default majority rule meant Monroe could lawfully use majority voting despite the city’s unprecleared 1966 charter changes. The Court held that Monroe’s pre-1966 silence meant the state-law default applies and that the Attorney General had precleared that default. The Court distinguished City of Rome, which involved a city whose charter explicitly provided for plurality voting, and therefore the deference sentence controlled there; by contrast, Monroe’s circumstances fall under the state default sentence that had been submitted and approved.

Real world impact

On this record the decision lets Monroe conduct mayoral elections under the precleared majority-vote default. The ruling turns on the undisputed facts and the 1968 code, so the Court did not resolve other arguments. The outcome affects how Georgia municipalities without explicit plurality charters will be treated under the 1968 code.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia wrote separately agreeing with the result but offering different reasoning about what the Attorney General should have known. Justices Souter and Breyer dissented, arguing the Rome precedent and notice rules mean the 1968 preclearance should not validate unsubmitted local changes.