Clark v. Roemer

Background

An application to stop and stay orders from a federal district court was presented to Justice Scalia and sent to the full Court. The district court had found that acts creating certain judicial offices were not precleared in violation of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Louisiana had scheduled elections for those judgeships on November 6 and December 8, 1990. The District Court’s list of affected judgeships appears in Part II of its October 22, 1990 order; Division B of the 20th Judicial District was later found to have been precleared.

Reasoning

The central question was whether to stop Louisiana officials from holding the elections for judgeships the District Court found unprecleared under §5. The Court granted the application in part and enjoined state officials from holding the specified November and December 1990 judicial elections for the judgeships listed in Part II, except Division B of the 20th Judicial District. In all other respects the emergency request was denied. The injunction is conditional: it depends on timely filing of a statement as to jurisdiction in the related appeal and stays in place while the Court considers the appeal. If the lower-court judgments are affirmed or the appeal is dismissed, the injunction ends automatically; if the Court notes probable jurisdiction or vacates or reverses the judgments, the injunction remains until the Court’s judgment is sent down.

Real world impact

The order prevents Louisiana from proceeding with specific judicial elections scheduled for late 1990 and affects the named judgeships and voters in those districts. The pause is temporary and tied to the appeal and jurisdiction filing, so the final outcome could change depending on the Court’s further action.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented. Justice Blackmun concurred in part and dissented in part, stating he would have denied the application entirely and therefore disagreed with the injunction granted by the Court.