Foreman v. Dallas County

Background

Dallas County changed how it picked election judges several times, most recently in 1996, using methods that relied on party affiliation. Voters who objected sued the county, arguing these changes required federal approval under the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge federal court held that the county’s choices were just exercises of state-granted discretion and that a 1985 state submission to the Justice Department had already cleared the state’s election-law recodification.

Reasoning

The Court explained that informal or discretionary changes can still require federal preclearance and that acting under a state law does not automatically avoid that requirement. The key question under the Voting Rights Act is whether a locality enacted or used a different voting practice than the one in place on November 1, 1972. The Court found the 1985 state submission only noted a change in appointment dates and durations and did not disclose the use of partisan methods, so it could not be treated as having approved those methods. Because the record did not show what procedure Dallas County used on November 1, 1972, the Court could not decide whether preclearance was required.

Real world impact

The Court vacated and remanded the lower-court rulings for more factual development and further proceedings. Counties that changed how they pick election judges may need to seek federal approval, and earlier state filings do not automatically cover undisclosed partisan appointment methods. The decision is procedural and leaves the final merits to the lower courts.