Appendix C
Redistricting the Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed without comment in 1986(1) and 1990(2) lower court decisions that applied Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to judicial districts. In 1991, the Court in Clark v. Roemer(3) affirmed its earlier decisions requiring Section 5 covered jurisdictions to obtain Section 5 preclearance before implementing any changes affecting voting in judicial districts. The Court has continued that position as recently as 1996 in Lopez v. Monterey County.(4)
In addition to applying Section 5 preclearance provisions to judicial districts, the Supreme Court, since 1991, has held that judicial elections are subject to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.(5)
The courts seem to have little or no problem evaluating cases for compliance with Section 5. However, no case has reached the Supreme Court where the court has set forth procedures for first determining if there is a Section 2 vote violation and second determining what remedies must be applied to overcome the violation.
The Supreme Court has affirmed its holding that the one person, one vote standard does not apply to a judicial election,(6) but has rejected the position that a vote dilution case cannot be proved without the one person, one vote standard.(7)
Section 2 challenges to judicial districts have been brought in numerous states since 1990, and the various courts have found problems dealing with the challenges. Most courts require plaintiffs to satisfy the three-prong Gingles(8)
test to prove vote dilution. Then, applying the "totality of circumstances" test, the courts, when considering the importance of "linkage" (that a judge serve the entire jurisdiction from which he or she is elected), have had difficulty with perfecting a remedy. Remedies such as single-member districts, cumulative voting, or increasing the size of the court have created serious problems so that, for the most part, those remedies have been rejected.
A judicial election case of note in the Sixth Circuit is Cousin v. Sundquist.(9)
The courts rejected as a remedy the idea of cumulative voting, or subdistricting (single-member districts). A petition for certiorari was filed Oct 5, 1998.
1. Haith v. Martin, 618 F Supp 410 (E.D. N.C. 1985, aff'd, 477 U.S. 901 (1986) (mem.).
2. Brooks v. Georgia St. Bd. of Elections, 775 F. Supp. 1470, aff'd, 498 U.S. 916 (1980) (mem.).
3. 500 U.S. 646, 653 (1991).
4. No. 95-1201, 136 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1996).
5. Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991); Houston Lawyers Ass'n v. Texas Attorney Gen., 501 U.S. 419 (1991).
6. Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 402 (1991), see also Wills v. Edwards, 347 F. Supp. 453 (M.D. La. 1972) aff'd, 409 U.S. 1095 (1973) (mem.).
8. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
9. 145 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1998).
Go to NCSL Redistricting and Reapportionment home page
This page is maintained by the Redistricting Task Force for the National Conference of State Legislatures
Update: 1/15/99 (psw)